Imam Feisal speaking on the Islamic Cultural Center
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?”
Alice in Wonderland
The arguments regarding the cultural center being planned near ground zero, are seemingly becoming 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 the United States was the victim of an unjust attack by Muslim extremists. The more complex approach 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, whose 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 see the word Mosque used to describe the planned construction, despite Rauf’s insistency that the planned project is an Islamic cultural center. Imam Rauf explains that the planned cultural center will be open to the New York community and will welcome all religious followers. The $100 million dollar center is to be built at 45 Park Place Street, located two blocks from the Northwest corner of the ground zero site. Currently, within several blocks of the ground zero site, there are also six churches, varying from a Jewish Synagogue in Battery Park, to a Greek Orthodox Church and numerous retail outlets and restaurants, including three strip clubs. The argument against locating an Islamic cultural center in this area, when compared to other religious facilities within the area, quickly falls back upon the fact that other religions did not perpetrate the 9/11 attacks. In fact a religion did not perpetrate the attacks, but terrorists that shared a religion did. This subtle fact appears to escape the majority of debates on the issue. This leads to the interjection that the Muslim religion is the easier target of our anger, leading us further down the rabbit hole of logical misunderstanding, only to focus this argument squarely on the basis of perceived sensitivity, or lack of sensitivity in building anything apparently related to Islam near the ground zero site.
Imam Rauf then becomes the face of this debate and his prior statements, writings and actions, threaten to negate his possible current intentions. 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.” This statement brings into question his personal views on Hamas as a terrorist state and his underlying feelings regarding Israel, questions he refused to address in an effort to promote only unity. 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 within 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 our collective enemies? Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, provide 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 reflecting his belief that American wars have been equally unjustified throughout history. The argument falls apart when compared to the facts that during World War II, the 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, as well as the attack on Pearl Harbor with further attacks planned against the U.S. mainland. 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 were 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 as a justification of a terrorist act that Rauf has condemned. There is no perceivable 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 the 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 and deeply insulting to the United States.
If we can allow tolerance for possibly 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 an Islamic cultural center near the ground-zero area is supported by many Jewish leaders, Christian leaders and even a large number of the family members of 9/11 victims. Is our fear then for the perception that others may perceive our lack of response or objection as a sign of our ignorance or naiveté 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 of 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 who object to this Islamic cultural center could cite that, compassion would be to recognize the collective voices of the objecting citizens. 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 much time needs to pass for this plan to seem less objectionable? Can the strong objection be realistically quantified by the emotional response level that tempers our views then 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 are occurring?
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 at risk of losing the very fabric that makes us Americans. If we are fearful that the message delivered will be one that incites anti-American actions, then the message is also covered within the Constitutional rights and again, the risk represents the duties of a progressing democracy. The American ideal that stands as the “gold-standard” example for many Nations will always remain in a state of 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 develop the pure and eliminate the impure. Some have even gone to the extremes of saying both the Nazi and Islamic plan equally share in an agenda to “wipe out the Jews.” Surely Americans are capable of evaluating the two beliefs, just as we have countless other beliefs throughout history and arriving at the truth. Perhaps the Imam’s message of tolerance is in essence “preaching to the converted.” After all, if America was as intolerant as some accuse, what then can we attribute the great progress that we have achieved in areas such as civil rights, improved foreign relationships and a successful democracy? It is the very debate of this issue’s 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 event, our society will continue to grow and change, evolve and mature. We will face future challenges by those who find reason to hate, despite the lessons of compassion and tolerance stressed in their own religious traditions.
Imam Rauf is the most acceptable 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 a place of worship or education. Rauf’s protected freedom to pursue the planned Islamic cultural center is the very same freedom that provided our Nation with comfort and healing on September 11th, 2001 and everyday after. Americans are proud to be citizens of a free society that values all members equally and a society that entrusts all citizens to demonstrate loyalty toward the very ideals we cherish. We pray there will always be an intrinsic goodness in the hearts of men that will out-weigh the few who seek overt power over freedom.
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 that is negatively attached 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
Thank you for this. I couldn’t agree more.