Alice in Wonderland
The arguments regarding the cultural center being planned near ground zero, can seemingly become as convoluted as Alice’s trip down the rabbit hole. The initial response is emotional and perhaps a well-deserved guttural expression of grief, fear and disbelief that still remains regarding the tragic attacks of September 11th, 2001. The simple approach is that we were the victims of an unjust attack by Muslim extremists. The more complex discussion remains that we were the victims of an attack by a misguided subset of Muslims who followed the violent teachings that are as alien to the Muslim religion as pedophilia is to the Catholic religion or racism is to southern members of various religions during segregation. So why are we misguided when we attempt to force an “all or nothing” generalization on what can only be considered an extremely complicated matter?
At the center of this controversy is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf is a Kuwaiti born Arab-American who is listed as Founder and Visionary of The Cordoba Initiative, an organization, who’s expressed mission statement, is to, “actively promote engagement through a myriad of programs, by reinforcing similarities and addressing differences.”
Rauf has been the Imam of the New York City Mosque Masjid al-Farah since 1983 and has been involved as an “ambassador of sorts” according to the State Department. My.nowpublic.com published this statement of Rauf’s mission to spread religious tolerance. “The department is sponsoring Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's visit to Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, where he will discuss Muslim life in America and promote religious tolerance, spokesman P.J. Crowley said. He said that the imam had been on two similar trips and that plans for the upcoming tour predated the mosque controversy.
"We have a long-term relationship with him," Crowley told reporters, noting that Rauf had visited Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar in 2007 and went to Egypt this January as part of an exchange program run by the State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs.
"His work on tolerance and religious diversity is well known, and he brings a moderate perspective to foreign audiences on what it's like to be a practicing Muslim in the United States," Crowley said.”
Again, we hear the use of the word Mosque, despite Rauf’s insistency that the planned project is a cultural center that will be utilized by the community and welcomes any and all religions. The $100 million dollar center is to be built on 45 Park Place Street, located two blocks from the Northwest corner of the ground zero site. Also located within blocks of the site are six churches, varying from a Jewish Synagogue in Battery Park, to a Greek Orthodox church. There are numerous retail outlets and restaurants, including three strip clubs. The argument falls back to the fact that we were not attacked by any of these facilities, which leads to the interjection that the Muslim religion is the easier target, which leads further down the rabbit hole of logical misunderstanding to focus this argument on the sensitivity of building anything apparently related to Islam near this site.
Imam Rauf is then the face of this debate, since it clearly is an impossibility to cast this decision to the voters. Rauf doesn’t always help his own pleadings of tolerance. After the 9/11 attacks, Rauf condemned the attacks as, “un-Islamic” and went on to call upon the United States government to, “reduce terrorism by altering its Middle East foreign policy.” In a 2004 quote, Rauf said, The U.S. and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end.” In a much more damaging statement Rauf said, The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians, but it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.” It would seem that there are several inconsistencies with these statements. We often hear of the conflict in Afghanistan regarding civilian deaths at the hands of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. It can be given the benefit of the doubt that these examples are not true Muslims, but fanatical Muslims. How then can we have a collective understanding of whom to fear? Afghanistan and Iraq have absolute examples of Islamic rulers waging war on innocent civilians, so again, how do we factor in the statements of Imam Rauf's Islamic beliefs, without convolution? Perhaps no absolutes exist however, decision-making does hold an element of filtering evidence through the strainer of consistency. In terms of Imam Rauf’s implication that Christians were responsible for Dresden and Hiroshima, that would appear to be a comment one would hope he would regret. The argument falls apart when compare to the facts that During World War II, United States came to the aid of our European allies against an aggressor dedicated to world domination and atrocities. Our involvement was also forced by the attack of American vessels off the Eastern seaboard. Hiroshima was agreeably a tragic response to an ongoing act of aggression and failure to cease aggression by the Japanese leaders. These conflicts though devastating when viewed through the eyes of current retrospection, were not Holy wars. In comparison to today’s standards of “rules of engagement,” the tactics of prior wars was indeed barbaric. The same could be said for all wars of the past, including Muslim wars through the ages. The goal of comments such as the ones made by Rauf, would appear to be placation of perceived American involvement, opposed to simply condemning the terrorist actions. There is no message of tolerance when Rauf agrees that the 9/11 attacks were wrong however, America is not innocent either.
Columnist Jonathan Rauch wrote of Rauf’s appearance on 60 Minutes, “Rauf gave a mixed, muddled, muttering message.” 19 Days after the 9/11 attacks, Rauf commented to a 60 minutes interviewer, “Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam.” When asked if the U.S. deserved the attacks he said, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” Rauch noted the use of the verb, crime that happened. When asked by 60 Minutes how he considered the U.S. an accessory, Rauf responded, “Because we have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world, in fact, in the most direct sense Osama Bin Laden is made in U.S.” Rauf is clearly referring to the United States assistance in the Afghan-Soviet war, when the U.S. via the CIA, aided the Mujahideen fighters, leading to the evolution of a discontented Bin Laden, who welcomed U.S. aid and training, but rejected the U.S. departure from Afghanistan before reconstruction of the war-torn region. Clearly to make this comment regarding Bin Laden being made in the U.S. is an over simplification.
If we can allow tolerance for possible poor word choice, then we are left with the evidence of actions. There is no doubt that Imam Rauf is striving for religious tolerance. Rauf’s decision to build a cultural center in the ground-zero area is supported by many Jewish leaders, Christian leaders and even a large number of family members of the 9/11 victims. Is our fear then for the perception that others may have of our ignorance to an obvious sensitivity slight? Muslim Sufi Mysticist Suleiman Schwartz comments that building the Islamic cultural center two blocks from ground zero is, “inconsistent with Sufi philosophy of simplicity of faith and sensitivity toward others.”
In a 2009 TED talk in New York City, Imam Rauf said, “The Qur’an urges us to remember to remind each other because the knowledge of truth is within every human being.” Certainly these words are positive and unifying, teaching tolerance to all. Rauf continues, “I believe personally we are on the verge and with the presence and help of people like you here, we can bring about the prophecy of Isaiah when he foretold of a period when people shall transform their swords into plowshares and will not learn war anymore. We have reached a stage in human history that we have no option, we must lower our egos, control our egos, whether it is individual ego, personal ego, family ego or National ego, and let all be for the glorification of one.”
Certainly this is a positive message with no real area for misrepresentation or ambiguity. Perhaps the message of Imam Rauf is intrinsically unifying. Why then do we have such convolution? Rauf began his lecture to the TED conference with a statement that Islam’s basis is one of compassion. “The Qur’an is a source of compassion from God, and that we, as people should, adorn yourself with the attributes of God.” The argument to those that object to this Islamic cultural center, could site that compassion would be to recognize the collective voice of the people. The argument could also be offered that if two blocks is too close, then how far away from ground zero is appropriate? If nine-years after 9/11 is too soon, then how long is appropriate. Is the objection really as quantified by the emotions that we view them with or is there evidence that the Muslim faith, the Muslim leader or the potential for the Muslim message is the reason for the powerful reactions that have occurred?
If we indict Imam Rauf as anti-American for his comments then the issue isn’t should he be allowed to build an Islamic cultural center. The American ideal fashioned by the Constitution allows him the same freedom of religious views and speech that it allows us all. If we are indicting all Muslim believers, then we are certainly shortsighted. If we are fearful that the message delivered will be one that incites anti-American actions, the message is also covered in the constitutional rights to deliver such a message. The American ideal that stands as the “gold-standard” of most nations is in constant evolution and constant challenge. We benefit far more from our diversity than we are harmed by it. Or are the many Europeans correct that diversity is simply another soft-term for Islamization? Some European “thinkers” compare Islamic beliefs with the Nazi agenda, to simply build the pure and eliminate the impure. Some have even gone to the extreme of saying both equally share in an agenda to “wipe out the Jews.” It would seem that Americans are capable of evaluating the two beliefs, just as we have countless other beliefs throughout history. Perhaps the Imam’s message of tolerance is in essence “preaching to the converted.” After all, if America was as intolerant as some believe, what then can we attribute the great progresses that we have recognized in our short existence? We are more alike than not. It is the very debate of this issues correctness that separates us from the ideals of those who actually orchestrated and carried out the attacks of September 11th.
In the words of John F. Kennedy, “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
The issues remain complicated and the motives convoluted. Hopefully our complex dialogue will avoid labeling any dissenting believers as bigots or terrorists, naïve or foolish. The future will be our destiny and history our judge. Regardless of the outcome of this decision, our society will continue to grow and change. We will face future challenges by those who find reason to hate, despite the lessons of compassion and tolerance in their own religion.
After examining my own thoughts and feelings, I considered that Imam Rauf is the face of Islam in this issue. It becomes easy to say that he shares a commonality with all Muslims and therefore his belief system is the same as all Muslim people. It would be easy to say that Rauf’s words are suspect and inconsistent, even though his words also hold hope and unity. It would be easy to judge his motives based on our own fears. It is however, difficult to deny him and his followers of a place of worship or of education, for that fact alone is why we felt such unity on September 11th, 2001. We are all proud to be members of a free society that values all and trusts in the goodness of the heart of mankind.
Imam Rauf is however, not the face of all Muslims. Just as, I am not the face of all Americans or of all Christians. It is true that Osama Bin Laden is a face most would easily negatively attach to the Muslim faith. We should strive however to avoid attaching Bin Laden’s deeds to the Muslim faith, despite his proclamation that Jihad is the true directive of all Muslims. There are many other faces we should attach to the Muslim faith, such as Khalid M. Shahid, a 25 year-old systems administrator who died in tower 1 of the World Trade Center, as did other Muslim believers.
A letter from the memorial of Khalid M. Shahid:
September 05, 2002
Dearest Shahid Family,
There are only two words that describes Khalid and that is "Great Man", I'm so glad I had the opportunity to work and have Khalid as a "FRIEND". It didn't matter the type of person you were, Khalid always saw the good in people. I have never in life met anyone so wonderful like him. What I miss the most of Khalid was his ability to make me laugh when I was sad. If there's anything that I learned from him it was to live life fully, and do what your heart desires. What was most important to Khalid was his Family, never stopped talking about his dreams and his future with Jaime. Khalid never had a bad day at work; in fact he had a strong positive energy that would light up our IT department every single day. No matter how bad things were in the office, Khalid always found the good in all. I will never forget all the times he gave me a ride to our office in New Jersey, he always offered and never hesitated.
Khalid has touched my heart in a very special way and he will always have a special place in my heart. He will always be remembered in our hearts.
Rest In Peace my friend.
~ Michelle Chea,
College Point, New York
No comments:
Post a Comment