The Language of Truth

Whether you’ve tuned in to NPR on your drive home from work or surfed through the wave of corporate media on TV, you’ve probably heard about this whole “Ground Zero Mosque” scandal.

The conflict has polarized Americans in the mist of an already heated midterm election year, galvanizing Tea Party candidates, and even some incumbent Democrats, to denounce the construction of an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan. The building, called Park 51, is funded by the Cordoba Initative, a group that aims to bridge relations between the Muslim and Western worlds in an attempt to foster peace, understanding and acceptance.

Ironically, the group’s mission to eradicate stereotypes and promote intercultural growth has generated a wave of unspeakably cruel anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments across the country. U.S. citizens have demanded the center be moved somewhere else to respect those who were killed on 9/11 “in the name of Islam,” a decidedly false claim. The architects of 9/11 planned their attack as an unequivocal response to foreign policy and American hubris. This goes without question given the overwhelming evidence:

Osama bin Laden threatened Americans for years before the 9/11 attacks, criticizing our military presence in the Middle East and perhaps most notably, our unconditional relationship with the state of Israel – a diplomatic stance that many Arabs believe has compromised our ability to facilitate any legitimate peace processes between Israel and Palestine.  Of course, none of this very accessible, very well documented history is imprinted in our historical memory, with U.S. citizens still using “al-Qaeda” and “Taliban” interchangeably.

As a result, a huge slice of our country still believes Islam inspired the attacks, rebranding the religion that dates back thousands of years as a modern product of Middle East barbarism – one that threatens the lives of Americans and hates us “for our freedoms,” to quote former Imperialist-in-Chief George W. Bush.

But what angers me the most about this entire debacle is the language used to guide our thinking: Ground Zero Mosque.

The phrase remains unquestioned by most media outlets and pundits, whether they openly support or disavow the center. But nothing about this besmirched structure relates to the name it’s been given.

The building is not a mosque; it’s an Islamic community center. And while areas for worship are certainly included in the blueprints, the building is meant to house and support individuals interested in learning about the Islamic community and how they, as non-Muslim Westerners or otherwise, can find common ground.

Calling it a “mosque” engenders a mass misconception of what is really being fought for, especially considering the presupposed pigeonholing Americans already engage in against Islam.  The word mosque is understood as an exclusively Muslim construction – one that is an adjunct to Islam. We don’t see this as a community center whose goals include solidarity for a free and loving nation. 

More specifically, the geographic relevance of this building is equally trivialized and manipulated through emotional connotation. By prefixing the already incorrect “mosque” with “ground zero,” we encourage ourselves to displace the building from its actual location (two blocks away from the original WTC); suddenly this so-called "ground zero mosque" is at the same place where 9/11 rescue workers once stood and Americans perished (including many Muslim- and Arab-Americans).

Referencing the site as a construction “on”,” “in,” or “right by” ground zero, none of which are true, compels us to judge the proponents of the center as insensitive attention-grabbers. Why build it at ground zero? There are many other locations, aren't there, we ask? "Come on," was the thoughtful argument of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA). 

However, this building is being built a few blocks from ground zero, not on it. And the geography is irrelevant, anyhow. Mosques are being built in rural Tennessee and the west coast, and they have received as much scrutiny and resulted in as much impassioned bigotry as their NYC counterpart. Clearly, there are stronger roots to dig out here, and they aren’t connected to a specific location.

In the end, you’re allowed to decide whether or not this Islamic community center is an acceptable risk. I believe those who are fighting for the building know they have to put themselves in such a dangerous position with sound preparation. The discrimination against Muslims takes place invariably all across the country, and is not inextricably linked to New York.

Therefore, Muslim- and Arab-Americans may realize they require the support of those who understand their right to exercise the first amendment. This challenging goal may have been inconceivable had they kept their “mosque”-building efforts in the Mid-West, where hatred was abundant but extensive support was scarce. I have to give the Cordoba Initiative credit for trying to gain as much help as possible, albeit in order to do so they had to pursue a controversial undertaking that has exacerbated and amplified the irrational hatred and ignorance of many Americans.

Again, you make the call on what you think this construction means or whether it’s fitting. But calling it the “ground zero mosque” is a misappropriation of language. This phrase yields nothing but extremely unsophisticated and uneducated notions of what the group behind it hopes to achieve, and what’s actually being built in the first place. This is not a “ground zero mosque” proposed to disrespect those who were lost in the name of insidiously crafted foreign policy. This is a significant opportunity for Americans to admit their prejudices and collaborate with Muslim- and Arab-Americans on the ways in which they can cultivate a stronger community within the U.S. and around the world.