The mosque that American Muslim groups are determined to build in Manhattan, near the spot of the World Trade Towers, or Ground Zero, has sparked protests led by the American right, which focuses on the “terrorist” nature of Islam. A report by the New York Times a few days ago clarifies the scope of the rejection of building mosques, and the spread of this phenomenon from the east coast to the west, from Manhattan to California, via the small towns of Tennessee and other states. The report says that the degree of rejection ranges from excuses about the congestion that these mosques will cause, to a clear statement of no desire to see places of worship for Muslims. Leading figures from the Republican Party, such as its former candidate for vice president, Sarah Palin, and the former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, are supporting the objections to building the mosques. They are joined by the Tea Party movement, on the right of the Republican Party, a group that is wagering that the majority of Americans will respond to its social, religious and racist chauvinism. The group began by targeting President Barack Obama and his social programs, and has made every conceivable effort to block health care reform. It widened its reach and supported the racist racial profiling law in Arizona, designed to stop immigration by Latin Americans. The Tea Party is now getting involved in every activity that opposes the building of mosques. In order to support their position ideologically, those who demonstrate against turning any building or empty space into a mosque or place of prayer for Muslims engage in the practice of using Muslim dissidents, especially after the attacks of 11 September 2001, who have written books that see Islam as the basis for every terrorist act. The opinions of this group betray an ignorance of the topic that they are tackling, and are based on subjective ideological bias, and stink of propaganda and profiteering from supporting Israeli occupation. The reason these views are not serious, and lack a critical basis, is that they are the personal tales of self-haters, people who on the look-out for quick fame. Labeling them “expert sources” of opponents of the building of mosques leads us to believe that the commotion about the Ground Zero and other mosques is not connected to the legal conditions for establishing a facility designated for a social activity, as much as it is an attempt to enshrine a deficient and close-minded stereotype of Islam and Muslims. Let us not put all of the blame on the extremist right-wing groups in the United States, and before them in Switzerland, which banned minarets, or on the climate whose spread was aided by the 11 September attacks. The truth is that the relationship between Muslims living in the west and the states whose passports they hold, or in which they work, has not experienced significant progress. The presumed dialogue that would lead to establishing relations spelling out the ties between Muslim groups and social and political authorities in western countries remains in its embryonic stages. To face the old and renewed racist impulses in the west, established on the basis of phenomena with a tenuous connection to Islam, and hindering Muslims in their relationship with the Muslim community, and the priority of this relationship over his or her connection to the institutions of the state and its laws, there arose a modern Islamic understanding of the state and its meaning, and the limits of its authority on Muslim individuals. Perhaps Muslims are partners in responsibility for not solving this problem, as the struggle over objectionable minarets and mosques is moving along the European and American continents.
