Robison 1

Jared Robison Professor Beno English Composition 101 10 November 2011 Ground Zero Mosque: A symbol of Hatred, Injustice, and Incompetence Thick, black smoke billowed from the structures as the screams and cries of innocent workers perforated the sky amidst the roaring of engulfing flames. Scorching debris could be perceived free-falling through the air, plummeting rapidly towards the ground; on closer observation, some of the airborne rubble was distinguished to be persons who preferred a sudden death to a horrendous suffering inside the inferno. Chaos, pain, destruction, death- words very poorly adapted to depict the unspeakable, atrocious act committed on September 11, 2001. An act that, premeditated with the utmost of malignity, was committed by Middle Eastern terrorists. This crime did not originate from the personal, subjective feelings and viewpoints of these extremists, however; rather, their undertaking was one motivated by the dictates of their religion. This worldwide system of beliefs, the very beliefs that instigated the hijackers, is identifiable as militant Islam. Without a doubt, any rational individual would indignantly demand the accountability and discipline of such a system. Any discerning thinker would automatically infer the societal implications held for this religion and cry for cultural retribution. Any sense of justice would, without hesitation, issue a fierce, perpetual ultimatum to those identifying with Islam. But the government of the United States of America has spit in the faces of its citizens- it has authorized the desecration of hallowed ground. Rather than engage its enemies, our nation has embraced them with despicable naivety and indifference to legality. How is this inanity and

Robison 2

perverseness manifested? What has transpired to make our leaders guilty of such a crime? Within close proximity to the very site where Islam committed its most grotesque barbarism, a shrine to its existence has been permitted to be constructed. Not three blocks away from Ground Zero, a Muslim cultural center and mosque has been granted presence. This unutterable insult, by virtue of its very nature, must be closely inspected in order to refute the claims of its proponents and vindicate the assertions of opponents. According to Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, in May of 2010, Sharif El-Gamal of Soho Properties purchased a building that had been damaged by wreckage from the 9/11 attacks. Located approximately two blocks from Ground Zero, Sharif originally planned to transform the structure into condominiums. However, being of the Muslim faith, he was influenced by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, an Islamic activist, to convert the impaired edifice into a Muslim community center that would, supposedly, encourage individuals of all faiths to converge and meet peacefully. Originally dubbed the Cordoba House, the project was delegated the name Park51, in accordance with the address of the property. In May of 2010, Sharif was officially granted permission to begin construction on Park51 and began work on what would become one of the most controversial issues of the year (Ground Zero Mosque). Almost overnight, construction of Park51 was scrutinized by and brought to the attention of the American public and media. As the issue was addressed over the next several months, the supporters and opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque- as Park51 came to be called- took clearly defined positions. Many influential democratic political figures firmly supported the project and offered verbal reinforcement. Sheryl Stolberg of the New York Times reported that President Obama offered a strong defense of Park51 and that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke forcefully in favor of it. Ms. Stolberg further states that conservatives, including but not

Robison 3

limited to Sarah Palin and Rick Lazio, openly opposed the cultural center ("Obama backs Islam Center near 9/11 site"). Both sides must necessarily be thoroughly discussed in order to obtain a comprehensive perspective of their beliefs and make a rational judgment. The primary reasons and convictions motivating the supporters of the Ground Zero Mosque primarily deal with the actual function of the future structure itself, the first amendment rights granted to United States citizens, and the perception of the religion of Islam. Kathy Pollitt, a liberal columnist, is a characteristic representative of the proponents of Park51, and fiercely argues in its defense. According to Pollitt (and all those who agree with her position), the socalled mosque is no more than a community center that tolerates Muslim followers as well as the participants of every other religion. She also posits that those in the opposition are guilty of violating first amendment rights, in which citizens are granted the right to join in any religion they please. Ultimately, religious tolerance must prevail; any Muslims who worship at Park51 are not responsible for any of the actions committed on 9/11 and hence should not be held accountable for them ("Banning the Cordoba House Would Be a Violation of the Separation of Church and State"). While these objections may pose some difficulty, ultimately they are reducible to immature jargon that exhaustively disgrace all those who voiced them. The Ground Zero Mosque, which is still under construction, is purportedly no more than a cultural center. However, while the structure is being completed, Imam Rauf currently utilizes the incomplete building as a so-called prayer space. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, that term is synonymous with mosque. When Park51 is finalized and its doors are opened to other religions, these Islamic pray space activities will continue, two blocks away from Ground Zero. Regardless of how many other different religious acts are enacted in the Cordoba House, as long as there is any type

Robison 4

of Muslim activity within its walls it should not be permitted on United States soil, let alone in close proximity to the site where thousands of Americans died. It must be remembered that the terrorists who so mercilessly assaulted and slaughtered United States citizens on American soil were followers of Islam. They were not an isolated group of schizophrenic, insane psychopathsthe hijackers were solid followers of Muhammad, acting under the instruction of the Islamist group Al-Qaeda. There is no act more insolent and audacious than that of placing the monument of our enemy on the ground where the blood of our people was pitilessly spilled, where the bodies of our citizens were burned and disfigured beyond recognition. Pacifists will claim that moderate Muslims who will be attending Park51 have absolutely no ties to the fanatics of September 11th. The rebuttal to this protestation is found in the very book to which all Muslims adhere- the Koran. The holy book of Islam contains numerous commands to slaughter all those who refuse to profess themselves as Muslims. "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Quran (4:74; 8:12, 39; 9:29) True, moderate Muslims may not attempt to slay thousands of Americans, but the writings they consider to be scripture are the same writings held sacred by Islamic terrorists. And in the end, who wants to take the chance that moderate

Robison 5

Muslims may obey their holy book and kill every unbeliever in sight? Something for President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg to contemplate Finally, the first amendment must be taken into consideration when addressing the Ground Zero Mosque. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Notice that the words separation of church and state are not in this amendment or any other part of the Constitution.) According to this governmental dictate, citizens are free to worship in any manner they please, any god they please. However, when a religion mandates violence and internal civil misconduct, the rights of the people affiliated with that religion must be abrogated in order to protect other citizens. Returning to the Park51 dispute, Sharif El-Gamal should not have the right to build a community center that houses believers of a religion who have killed thousands of American citizens. Such an action is highly inappropriate and shows favoritism to a hostile group; this partiality merely offers the antagonists more opportunity to spread mayhem. And as George Neumayr points out, the First Amendment was originally written to protect the states from a future federal government that might swoop down and crush the public religious life of majorities in those states. In other words, it is the very First Amendment that Scarborough mangles which permits New Yorkers to block the construction of a mosque ("Banning the Cordoba House Would Not Be a Violation of the Separation of Church and State"). Ultimately, the Park51 project is a dishonorable debacle on the part of the U.S. government to venerate the Americans who died on 9/11. The Ground Zero Mosque is also a failure of our political system to hold liable the indirect proponents of unfounded violence and bloodshed;

Robison 6

rather, it has pandered to our true enemies in the name of tolerance. Without a doubt, every loyal American should rise up and demand the revocation of Islams right to build a mosque on ground held sacred by the virtue of the lives sacrificed there.

Robison 7

Works Cited "Banning the Cordoba House Would Be a Violation of the Separation of Church and State" by Katha Pollitt. Church and State. Lynn M. Zott, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Greenhaven Press, 2012. Katha Pollitt, "Ground Zero for Free Speech," The Nation, August 12, 2010. www.TheNation.com. Copyright 2010 by The Nation. Reproduced by permission. "Banning the Cordoba House Would Not Be a Violation of the Separation of Church and State" by George Neumayr. Church and State. Lynn M. Zott, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Greenhaven Press, 2012. George Neumayr, "The Separation of Islamophilia from State," American Spectator, August 19, 2010. Spectator.org. Copyright 2010 by American Spectator. Reproduced by permission.

"Ground Zero Mosque." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Gale, Cengage Learning, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. "Obama backs Islam Center near 9/11 site." New York Times 14 Aug. 2010: A1(L). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 10 Nov. 2011.