[編譯] Build that mosque
http://www.economist.com/node/16743239?story_id=16743239&fsrc=rss
WHAT makes a Muslim in Britain or America wake up and decide
that he is no longer a Briton or American but an Islamic
"soldier" fighting a holy war against the infidel? Part of it
must be pull: the lure of jihadism. Part is presumably push:
a feeling that he no longer belongs to the place where he lives.
Either way, the results can be lethal. A chilling feature of
the suicide video left by Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader
of the band that killed more than 50 people in London in July,
2005, was the homely Yorkshire accent in which he told his
countrymen that "your" government is at war with "my people".
什麼樣的情況會導致英國或美國的穆斯林棄絕自己的英國人或美國人
身分，決定投入對抗異教徒的伊斯蘭聖戰？部分原因應是外在誘因，
也就是受到伊斯蘭聖戰的吸引。另一原因則可能是來自環境內部力量
的驅使，也就是喪失了自己對居住環境的歸屬感。無論是哪種原因造
成影響，都有可能招致可怕的後果。Mohammad Sidique Khan於2005年
7月主導倫敦爆炸案，造成超過50人死亡。在他宣告要進行自殺攻擊的
影片中最令人不寒而慄的是，Mohammad Sidique Khan以一口英國人熟
悉的約克郡口音告訴他的英國同胞：「你們的」政府正與「我的同胞」
交戰。
For a while America seemed less vulnerable than Europe to
home-grown jihadism. The Pew Research Centre reported three
years ago that most Muslim Americans were "largely assimilated,
happy with their lives… and decidedly American in their
outlook, values and attitudes." Since then it has become
clear that American Muslims can be converted to terrorism
too. Nidal Malik Hassan, born in America and an army major,
killed 13 of his comrades in a shooting spree at Fort Hood.
Faisal Shahzad, a legal immigrant, tried to set off a car
bomb in Times Square. But something about America-the fact
that it is a nation of immigrants, perhaps, or its greater
religiosity, or the separation of church and state, or the
opportunities to rise-still seems to make it an easier place
than Europe for Muslims to feel accepted and at home.
過去跟歐洲相比，美國國內的聖戰風潮似乎不興盛。三年前，皮優研究
中心的報告指出，大多數的美國穆斯林「非常融入美國社會，安居樂業
…在外表，價值觀以及行為舉止上都是十足的美國化」。但後來大家發
現，美國穆斯林也可能變身為恐怖份子。Fort Hood血案中瘋狂槍殺13
名同袍的陸軍少校Nidal Malik Hassan是在美國出生的；企圖在時代廣
場引爆汽車炸彈的Faisal Shahzad是個合法美國移民。但美國是個移民
國家，宗教信仰普及，政教分離，而且每個人都有出人頭地的機會。這
些特點使得美國與歐洲相比之下，仍舊是個較容易讓穆斯林融入的社會。
It was in part to preserve this feeling that George Bush repeated
like a scratched gramophone record that Americans were at war
with the terrorists who had attacked them on 9/11, not at war
with Islam. Barack Obama has followed suit: the White House
national security strategy published in May says that one way
to guard against radicalisation at home is to stress that "diversity
is part of our strength-not a source of division or insecurity."
This is hardly rocket science. America is plainly safer if its
Muslims feel part of "us" and not, like Mohammad Sidique Khan,
part of "them". And that means reminding Americans of the
difference-a real one, by the way, not one fabricated for the
purposes of political correctness-between Islam, a religion
with a billion adherents, and al-Qaeda, a terrorist outfit that
claims to speak in Islam's name but has absolutely no right or
mandate to do so.
以前小布希總是像唱片跳針似的一再重申：美國是跟九一一的恐怖分子
開戰，不是和伊斯蘭教開戰，所以歐巴馬也蕭規曹隨。五月刊出的白宮
國家安全策略指出，要防止美國國內極端主義蔓延，就必須強調「多元
文化是美國的優勢，不是歧異或危險的來源」。這不是什麼新鮮的論點，
美國國內的穆斯林如果歸屬感較高，當然會比有Mohammad Sidique
Khan這樣覺得自己不屬於美國的穆斯林來得讓美國更安全。也就是說，
美國政府要提醒人民，基地組織和有十億信徒的伊斯蘭教是兩回事，而
且不是為了政治正確才刻意這麼說。基地這個恐怖組織總是以伊斯蘭為
名，但其實他們根本無權這麼做。
Why would any responsible American politician want to erase that
vital distinction? Good question. Ask Sarah Palin, or Newt
Gingrich, or the many others who have lately clambered aboard
the offensive campaign to stop Cordoba House, a proposed community
centre and mosque, from being built in New York two blocks from
the site of the twin towers. Every single argument put forward
for blocking this project leans in some way on the misconceived
notion that all Muslims, and Islam itself, share the
responsibility for, or are tainted by, the atrocities of 9/11.
任何有點責任感的政治人物，都不應該企圖抹滅伊斯蘭和恐怖組織之間
的差別。但為什麼還是有人要這麼做呢？好問題，這個問題該去問Sarah
Palin或 Newt Gingrich，還有其他許多想要阻止Cordoba House建造計
畫的人．Cordoba House是一個預計要建在紐約市內的社區中心兼清真
寺，距離世貿雙子星舊址只有兩個街區。任何一個反對這個建造計畫的
論點，某種程度上都源於一個錯誤的看法，也就是所有穆斯林以伊斯蘭
教本身，都要為911的悲劇負責。
In a tweet last month from Alaska, Ms Palin called on "peaceful
Muslims" to "refudiate" the "ground-zero mosque" because it would
"stab" American hearts. But why should it? Cordoba House is not
being built by al-Qaeda. To the contrary, it is the brainchild
of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a well-meaning American cleric who
has spent years trying to promote interfaith understanding, not
an apostle of religious war like Osama bin Laden. He is modelling
his project on New York's 92nd Street Y, a Jewish community
centre that reaches out to other religions. The site was selected
in part precisely so that it might heal some of the wounds opened
by the felling of the twin towers and all that followed. True,
some relatives of 9/11 victims are hurt by the idea of a mosque
going up near the site. But that feeling of hurt makes sense
only if they too buy the false idea that Muslims in general
were perpetrators of the crime. Besides, what about the feelings,
and for that matter the rights, of America's Muslims-some of
whom also perished in the atrocity?
上個月Palin自阿拉斯加發出一則推特留言，呼籲「愛好和平的穆斯林」
反對Cordoba House的建造計畫，因為這樣做會「撕裂美國人民的心」。
真會如此嗎？要蓋Cordoba House的不是基地組織，這個計畫是Feisal
Abdul Rauf長老的構想。Feisal Abdul Rauf長老是個美國人，長年來
一直致力於推動各宗教互相了解。他不是像賓拉登這種企圖挑起宗教戰
爭的狂熱份子。他在紐約的一個與其他宗教來往交流的猶太社區中心打
造這個計畫。會選擇這個地點，其中一個原因就是想要減輕911事件的創
痛。有些911事件罹難者的家屬對於要在雙子星舊址附近建清真寺的確感
到痛苦。但就是因為他們誤以為穆斯林全都該為911負責，才會這麼想。
更何況，有人關心過美國穆斯林的感受和權利嗎？911事件的罹難者中
也有穆斯林。
Ms Palin's argument does at least have one mitigating virtue:
it concentrates on the impact the centre might have, without
impugning the motives of those who want to build it. The same
half-defence can be made of the Anti-Defamation League, a venerable
Jewish organisation created to fight anti-Semitism and other
forms of bigotry. To the dismay of many liberal Jews, the ADL
has also urged the centre's backers to seek another site in
order to spare the feelings of families of the 9/11 victims.
But at least it concedes that they have every right to build
at this site-and that they might (only might, since the ADL
hints at vague concerns about their ideology and finances)
genuinely have chosen it in order to send a positive message
about Islam.
Palin的觀點倒也不是一無可取，至少她關心的重點是建造Cordoba House
可能帶來的衝擊，她沒有質疑建造這個中心的動機。同樣的，ADL(一個
反對反猶太主義和其他歧視的猶太組織)的看法也不是全然無理。ADL
呼籲Cordoba House計畫的支持者另尋地點，以免對911事件罹難者的家
屬心理造成衝擊。儘管如此，ADL還是表示計畫建造Cordoba House的團
體絕對有權在世貿中心舊址附近蓋清真寺，而且這個團體選擇這個地點
「也許」(說「也許」是因為ADL對該團體的意識形態和資金來源還是有
些許疑慮)真的是出於善意，想為伊斯蘭傳播正面訊息。
The Saudi non-sequitur
No such plea of mitigation can be entered on behalf of Mr
Gingrich. The former Republican speaker of the House of
Representatives may or may not have presidential pretensions,
but he certainly has intellectual ones. That makes it impossible
to excuse the mean spirit and scrambled logic of his assertion
that "there should be no mosque near ground zero so long as
there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia". Come
again? Why hold the rights of Americans who happen to be Muslim
hostage to the policy of a foreign country that happens also
to be Muslim? To Mr Gingrich, it seems, an American Muslim is
a Muslim first and an American second. Al-Qaeda would doubtless
concur.
但是前共和黨眾議院議長Gingrich的觀點就不是這麼回事了。Gingrich
是否有競逐總統寶座的條件還有待商榷，但是他絕對具備思考明辨的能
力。所以他為何表現得如此不明事理，就實在令人費解。Gingrich說：
「因為在沙烏地阿拉伯沒有基督教堂和猶太教堂的容身處，所以也不能
讓他們在世貿中心舊址附近蓋清真寺」。這是什麼邏輯？其他穆斯林國
家的政策干美國穆斯林的權利什麼事？Gingrich似乎認為，美國穆斯林
跟其他美國公民不一樣，他們的「主要身分」是穆斯林，美國公民身分
是附加的。基地組織一定很認同Gingrich這種觀點。
Mr Gingrich also objects to the centre's name. Imam Feisal says
he chose "Cordoba" in recollection of a time when the rest of
Europe had sunk into the Dark Ages but Muslims, Jews and Christians
created an oasis of art, culture and science. Mr Gingrich sees
only a "deliberate insult", a reminder of a period when Muslim
conquerors ruled Spain. Like Mr bin Laden, Mr Gingrich is apparently
still relitigating the victories and defeats of religious wars
fought in Europe and the Middle East centuries ago. He should
rejoin the modern world, before he does real harm.
Gingrich也反對這個清真寺以Cordoba為名。Feisal長老表示他選擇這
個名字是要紀念穆斯林、猶太人和基督徒在藝術、文化、科學上發展鼎
盛的一個時期。當時歐洲正處於黑暗時代。Gingrich卻認為這是「刻意
侮蔑」，目的是要讓大家想起當時穆斯林征服西班牙的歷史。很明顯的
，Gingrich和賓拉登一樣，還在在意幾百年前歐洲和中東的宗教戰爭勝
負。在他真的惹出什麼大麻煩以前，Gingrich最好趕快把自己拉回現代
世界。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 218.167.107.99