@Intrepid,
Quote:I am afraid I am getting confused as to which 'side' you are rooting for.
There is no question that I support their constitutional right to build this mosque. And I abhor the voices of bigotry that condem the Muslim religion.
But, after doing a lot of reading, and giving the matter a lot of thought, I do think that the Cordoba Initiative should consider re-locating this mosque at least a mile from Ground Zero.
At least some of the objections, and they are somewhat legitimate objections, are not to the building of a mosque per se, but to the building of this mosque by the particular people backing it, particularly Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and placing it so close to the WTC site. Rauf has long generated controversy because he has appeared sympathetic to terrorist causes. So, for someone who appears at all sympathetic to terrorist causes, to deliberately want to locate his mosque near Ground Zero, has touched a nerve that might not have been the case if the mosque had a different backer.
Consider some background about Feisal Abdul Raul...
Quote:
In 2004, he said the U.S. and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end. Speaking at his New York mosque, Abdul 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.
He also said that there could be little progress in Western-Islamic relations until the U.S. acknowledged backing Middle East dictators, and the U.S. President gave an "American Culpa" speech to the Muslim world, because there are "an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there [is] no sign of the attacks ending unless there [is] a fundamental change in the world".
Columnist Jonathan Rauch wrote that Abdul Rauf gave a "mixed, muddled, muttered" message after 9/11. Nineteen days after the attacks, he told CBS’s 60 Minutes that fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. Rauch said that the message was mixed, however, because when then asked if the U.S. deserved the attacks, Rauf answered: "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 observed: "Note the verb. The crime "happened"?"
When the interviewer asked Rauf how he considered the U.S. an accessory, he replied, "Because we have been 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 USA." Peter T. King, Rick Lazio, and Sarah Palin expressed concern about his remarks, when discussing Abdul Rauf as the driving force behind the Cordoba mosque.
At National Review, Dan Foster wrote: "When you say that the United States was “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11, as he did, it tends to blunt my ability to pick up the subtleties of what comes after. That interview was equivocal at every turn, and when moral equivalences are trotted out re: 9/11, the tie goes to “your either with us, or with the terrorists.” In other words, we are perfectly entitled to suspect that the “accessories to the crime” bit represents the investment, while the “condemning terrorism” bit is merely the hedge. The editors of the magazine wrote "While he cannot quite bring himself to blame the terrorists for being terrorists, he finds it easy to blame the United States for being a victim of terrorism."
During an interview on New York WABC radio in June 2010, Abdul Rauf declined to say whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Responding to the question, Rauf said, "I'm not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Abdul Rauf had supported radical causes that sympathized with Islamic terrorism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_Rauf
So, some of the objections to the building of this mosque near Ground Zero, are not expressions of bigotry toward Islam, but rather unease about Feisal Abdul Rauf's possible terrorist ties or sympathies. And a project headed by him, and placed near the WTC site, the scene of a terrorist attack, is apparently an affront to the sensibilities of many people.
And Rauf has not done much to allay some people's concerns. Why does he hedge when asked if he considers Hamas a terrorist organization? Because he doesn't want to be seen by them as "an adversary or enemy"? What does that mean? Similarly, he has said he will take money from foreign governments to built his cultural center/mosque, but he has not revealed which foreign governments. Because some people are not sure where his allegiances are, they just don't completely trust him, and they do not trust the influences he could bring into a cultural center/mosque.
So, some of the opposition is not to a mosque, it is more specifically opposition to a mosque backed by Feisal Abdul Rauf, particularly if that mosque is located near Ground Zero, because he is seen as sympathetic to terrorist groups. This sort of reaction should not have surprised Rauf at all. While he is entitled to hold any opinions he chooses to, he should expect to take some heat for some of those opinions which might not sit well with other people.
And, if Feisal Abdul Rauf, and his wife, Daisy Khan, really want to build bridges between the West and the Muslim world, and present a positive image of moderate Islam, as they claim, they are certainly off to a rocky start, mainly due to blunders they have made in the public relations department. These are two savvy NYers who should have attempted to smooth the waters, or at least tried to tap into what people, particularly the 9/11 families, felt about their proposed project before they began moving forward. The thought of doing that seems never to have occurred to them.
Quote:
Though she knew some 9/11 families through her interfaith work, Khan says neither she nor her husband reached out to them in advance. “I guess in hindsight, if we had known this would be such an issue, we would have started with them.” Instead, they started with the community board, the city officials who would eventually vote their approval. (Khan plans to meet with 9/11 family members this week.)
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/08/war-over-ground-zero.html
How could they not have anticipated this "would be such an issue"? How could they not have anticipated an outcry, particularly given the fact that controversy has swirled around Feisal Abdul Rauf for years? Possibly because they just didn't care about other people's feelings.
Quote:
Why, I asked her, did they not anticipate the outcry that would ensue? For one thing, she explains, they were fixtures in the neighborhood and had been for decades. But she also talked about “ownership,” the idea that 9/11 happened to them, too. Members of their congregation were killed in the disaster. “We have not been allowed to mourn, as if it was somebody else’s tragedy. We are accused and painted with a broad brush, as if we had anything to do with the people who perpetrated this. So for us, rebuilding this neighborhood is a responsibility, because 9/11 is not just an event, it is a historical event that has reshaped the world.”
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/08/war-over-ground-zero.html
Well, they might have been fixtures in the neighborhood for decades, but that did not include a huge 100,000 square foot, 13 story building 2 blocks from Ground Zero before now. They might have figured that project was worthy of a little discussion with some of the other interested parties, like the 9/11 families, or even other clergy. But, if the site was deliberately chosen to give them some "ownership" of the events of 9/11, they apparently just didn't care about what others felt or thought, including whether people felt offended.
Quote:The Imam's wife, Daisy Khan, who is the executive director of the ASMA Society, speaking at a public hearing in Lower Manhattan on May 25, 2010, was widely quoted as having said building a community center two blocks from ground zero was "no big deal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_Rauf
For Daisy Khan to say her project's location two blocks fom Ground Zero was no"big deal" when protests were already going on, does reflect considerable insensitivity. It also suggests that she and her husband, Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf, may really not be the right people to build those bridges of understanding between people who have differences. Not if they have a really hard time understanding what other people are feeling, or if they just choose to disregard those feelings that other people have.
Rauf and Khan have every legal right to build their mosque. But the latest poll shows that 68% of NYers now oppose the building of the cultural center/mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. If Raul and Khan dig in their heels and refuse to re-locate, they will not serve their cause well. They will appear to have an in-your-face attitude when some greater understanding is called for. They should consider another location, at more of a distance from the WTC site. And not because they feel bullied or corerced, but because, if they really do want to build bridges of understanding, they realize the need to do that by their own example and actions, and not just through their words. By offering to relocate, they will be extending the hand of peace and healing.
In a somewhat similar situation, Jews were highly offended when a Catholic Carmelite convent was build adjacent to the grounds of Auschwitz. Even though the nuns offered to pray for the souls of all people, Jewish groups and leaders felt that the area had to remain dedicated only to the memories of the victims who died there. This claim was based on the strong emotional feelings of the Jewish people. They continued to oppose the convent until Pope John Paul II relocated the convent one mile away in 1984.
Quote:the New York Sun website invoked the Carmelite controversy in an editorial. “We don’t want to make any inappropriate comparisons in respect of the Holocaust, which is unique in history. But what settled that crisis with the Carmelites was the grit of a few courageous protesters, like Rabbi Avi Weiss, and the seichel of John Paul II, who grasped that the demand for forbearance was not hostility toward his religion and that understanding was not weakness.” By picking another site, the editorial said, The Cordoba Initiative can “show its capacity for respect, understanding, and forbearance.”
http://rupeenews.com/2010/08/07/ajc-jcrc-rabbis-jewish-groups-support-cordoba-project/
Understanding is not weakness. I hope that Rauf and Khan will show understanding and consider re-locating their project. We need to begin healing our divides and not enlarging them, and they can help to lead the way to doing that. This is a situation that does call for forbearance. 9/11 is still a raw wound, certainly for the families who lost loved ones that day. Some forbearance, and respect and understanding is needed.
.
