Stop the Saudi Arabia Analogy Already

If you’ve been following the debate over the building of a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City, you most likely will have heard a thing or two about Saudi Arabia’s intolerance of non-Muslims.  

Opponents of the plan have been arguing that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to build the mosque because Saudi Arabia does not allow the construction of non-Muslim religious sites.  For example, Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, recently came out against the mosque, to be called Cordoba House, on these exact grounds.  A statement published on his website on July 21 begins “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.”  Gingrich then proceeds to question the sincerity behind the name of the mosque and its sources of funding, but his central point is that Muslims are practicing double standards.  Midway through the statement, he returns again to Saudi Arabia and points out indignantly that “no Christian or Jew can even enter Mecca.”

Gingrich and his conservative Christian ilk are not alone in demanding that the Saudis reciprocate religious tolerance before the mosque is given a green light.  At protests organized last month in NYC against the proposed mosque, signs, presumably held by Jews, could be spotted that stated “You can build a mosque at Ground Zero when we can build a synagogue in Mecca.”  Another protester held a placard that stated “Build this Mosque… Right After a Cathedral in Riyadh is Complete.”  And, in the comments section of newspaper articles discussing the mosque controversy, at least one commentator can be counted on to bring up the Saudi ban.  For instance, in a July 20th article in the New York Times, a commentator asks rhetorically “How many churches are there in Mecca, how many in Madina, how many in the whole of Saudi Arabia?”  Though not the most popular, the comment was recommended by 67 people.

Thus, it seems fair to say that those opposing the mosque find the lack of reciprocity on the part of Muslims, represented by Saudi Arabia in their eyes, a valid argument.

Fortunately, though, most Americans understand that first amendment rights are just that – rights, not bargaining tokens.  The Manhattan Community Board approved plans to build the mosque in a 29-1 vote two months ago.  And, NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg has defended the mosque in the face of mounting criticism, calling opposition to it "un-American" and "against what the nation stands for."

But beyond the un-Americaness of qualifying freedom of religion, the analogy of mosques in New York to churches in Saudi Arabia is wrong on two other grounds that opponents of the mosque have missed.  

First of all, the call for reciprocity might make sense if the people who want to build the mosque and pray there are Saudi government officials.  After all, it is the Saudi government – not ordinary Muslims – whose intolerance of other religions, not to mention of Shia Islam, is the reason there isn’t “a cathedral in Riyadh.”  Although the Cordoba Initiative, the organization that has raised $100 million to build the mosque, has not revealed its sources of funding, there is no doubt that the Muslims who will pray at Cordoba House are Americans, including African-Americans, and immigrants from around the world who have made New York their home.  In fact, only a tiny sliver of them are likely to be from Saudi Arabia, as Saudis are a minority among Arabs, who are in turn a minority among Muslims.  It is wrong – and unfair – to hold Muslims in NYC responsible for the policies of a country that, beyond visiting once to make pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina (one of the pillars of Islam), they probably have nothing to do with.

Second, there is a verse in the Qur’an, which Muslims take to be the word of God, that bars non-Muslims from entering Mecca (Ch. 9, Verse 28).  Over time, scholars have interpreted the verse to include Medina as well. Presumably, the purpose of the ban is to preserve the sanctity of, as well as Muslim control over, the two holy cities.  Thus, NYC is not the equivalent of Mecca because it is not sacred ground.  The divine injunction against non-Muslims entering the two holy cities does not, of course, excuse Saudi Arabia's persecution of religious minorities and failure to allow non-Muslims to build places of worship elsewhere in the kingdom.  But it does explain why there isn’t “a synagogue in Mecca.”  Before someone points out that this exclusivity is a sign of Islam’s intolerance, let’s keep in mind that the concept of preserving certain land for certain people exists in other religions as well.  The most obvious example of promised land is Israel, not Mecca. 

The failure of Americans to take these two points into account is indicative of a tendency to treat Muslims as a monolith and a wider ignorance of Islam.  Hopefully, the first amendment will be sufficient to deter opponents from taking legal action against the Cordoba Initiative and will allow the mosque to be built.  Afterwards, Cordoba House’s congregation should take it upon themselves educate New Yorkers – and Americans in general – about Islam and show them the diversity of the Muslim-American community.