The best arguments in the debate revolving around the “Ground Zero” mosque in New York City are the thoughtful ones against the construction of it.

Yes, it is true that President Obama spelt out the legal argument that respects the rights of all people in America:

As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.

Even a prominent Republican, the governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, agreed with this logical articulation of one of the core issues in the controversial debate:

I think he’s right – I mean you know we’re a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others . . . I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you’re supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you [that] you can’t.

But demolishing a building to erect a new mosque two blocks away from where thousands of Americans were killed by Muslim extremists is not merely about legal issues and citizens’ rights. Yes, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf can build a mosque there. He and his community have the right to. But given the sensitive nature of this now sacred ground, why would they? This question is asked (and brazenly answered) by Tarek Fatah and Raheel Raza in an article titled “Mischief in Manhattan” published in the Ottawa Citizen on August 17.

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” – i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna”

The Canada-based Muslim writers then ask:

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

Pakistani journalist Irfan Husain offered these thoughts to the argument:

In such an emotionally charged debate, it’s hard to be rational. Logically, the location should be immaterial: after all, there is already a mosque in the area, not far from Ground Zero. So why should another make any difference? The truth is that the 9/11 attacks continue to resonate deeply in America, so what’s the point in insisting on a project that is like a red flag to a bull?

This is a valid point out, and arguably the most critical (and most Islamic) one. Yes, there is already another mosque in the area. And it’s one run by the same Imam who is heading the offensively named “Cordoba Initiative” — the name spurred protesters against the mosque to hold placards reading, “Islam builds mosques at the sites of their conquests and victories.” But is this the way to achieve harmony? Is this the way to soothe the pain of neighbours and fellow countrymen? There is no goodwill here. It seems like unnecessary expansion and extreme insensitivity. The type of insensitivity Muslims of all stripes deplore when people decide to draw pictures of the Prophet (PBUH): yes, they have the right to draw the pictures, but why do they insist on going through with it?

The proposed Mosque reportedly has a price tag of $100 million and there is much speculation that the majority of the funding is coming from Saudi Arabia. Husain adds this:

More to the point for me is that the Saudis have been funding mosques and madrassas around the world, in addition to paying for chairs for Islamic studies at major universities. All these have been used to project the country’s official Wahhabi version of Islam that has fuelled the rising tide of extremism and jihadi fervour. Against this backdrop, the question to ask is whether we need yet another such mosque.

Clearly this mosque will only widen the divide in the US between Muslims and Islamophobes.

In Fatah and Raza’s article, they add this:

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

Fatah and Raza end their argument asking liberals to question their support for projects like this as they feel many liberals are blinded by their desire to be fair and tolerant, their unbending belief in upholding minority rights and a powerful sense of guilt. The words are tough, resonating and darkly cautionary:

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

Watch these videos on the “Ground Zero” mosque debate:

• The first is a look at the ad campaign against the mosque and a peek at the mosque that already exists.
• The second gives a chance to a US Muslim who is not associated with the controversial mosque to defend the location.

An Ad Campaign Against the Mosque Hits NYC Buses

US Muslim Defends “Ground Zero” Mosque