On "Muslim-West Relations"

Unfortunately, the terms being used in the shouting match over the founding of a Muslim community center and mosque in a building hit in the 9/11 attacks are “Muslim,” “mosque,” and “9/11” instead of “terrorist,” “Muslim,” and “difference.” It was not Muslims that attacked the country but radical Muslims and just as with Strom Thurmond and Republicans, the fringe can neither be considered representative of the whole nor dictate the treatment of the whole. To do so means alienating those who would be friends, strengthening those who are enemies and turning away those who may become friends or enemies.

Each of the groups see the other as taking an uncertain place in its existence, where the balance of that relation can be upset toward antagonistic as readily as it can toward friendly. Instead of being called a provocation or a demonstration of a lack of sensitivity, the founding of a Muslim community center could be seen as tipping the balance of the relationship in the right direction. It would be a great testament to inclusion if it was celebrated as such.

But "improving Muslim-West relations," as called for on the Cordoba House’s website, should not be necessary. Muslims and the West are not groups with an inherent need for improved relations or even relations at all. Unlike Muslims and Christians or the US and China, Muslims and the West do not make up a greater whole; they do not fall under the same heading. A nation that prides itself on diversity should not bat an eyelash when the members of a group with a radical fringe attempt to go about their normal business because it simply knows that the group is part of the national whole and cannot be understood by the actions of its fringe. In other words, it would be the grandest symbolism if nothing were made of the proposal.