Truth about ‘The Mosque at Ground Zero’
Being covered up on a demanding writing deadline during the weeks this firestorm was brewing, I decided to give this controversy a miss. But church, friends, media obfuscation, and a conference call with Daisy Khan indicated that I needed to find the time. I did. Here are the plain facts in plain English, in the first half of the article. In the second half I face a huge issue at the heart of the controversy that has been ignored by media and pundits alike: why law and rights, as good as they may be, are the wrong organizing principle for helping to heal our country’s still deep and open 9/11 wound. I suggest an alternative way ahead. (Note: the second half, “What would wisdom do?”, was added to the article a week after the first half was published.)
Read the article here
Post 9/11 Islam is presenting a real challenge for ‘The West’ but also for Christians, Jews, and people of other non-Abrahamic faiths world.
One reason the challenge is so great is because there is much mis-information in the form of both pro and anti-Islamic propaganda which saturates the media.
So we have the propaganda of Islamic militancy, the propaganda of the Christian religious right and the propaganda of the liberal left and so on.
One question we need to ask is are we to believe the ‘politically correct’ liberal left and the pronouncements of both George Bush and President Obama along with the pleading and deferential ‘moderate’ Muslims that Islam is essentially and at its core a religion of peace and of peaceful co-existence with other faiths? The problem is that there is no historical evidence of this.
The whole idea of “Islamic assimilation” (on the model of 18th 19th and 20th century Jewish assimilation) to secular culture is highly unrealistic in my view. What is more likely, it seems to me, is devout Western Muslims becoming over the coming decades as the 12st Century unfolds, a kind of ‘Firth Column” within secular Western nation states. Note: A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group such as a nation from within, to help an external enemy.
The hope of a ‘reform of Islam’ (with Protestant Reformation and the European secular enlightenment as paradigms) is misplaced I think. Whereas the violence and barbarity evidenced in much Christian history can be shown to be in direct violation of the founding texts of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus…… this is not at all the case for Islam and the teachings of the Koran.
Mohammed was a warlord and within the Koran and other foundational texts of Islam there is a specific legal code with a sophisticated theological vision of world conquest which includes specific instructions on the treatment of both Christians and Jews living under Islamic rule.
I would like to recommend a very interesting lecture by Islamic scholar and theologian Mark Durie on this matter. In this fascinating 56 minute lecture Durie looks at the historic ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY OF CONQUEST as reflected in the Koran and islamic Law and how this impacts non-Muslims living in Muslim countries, especially the treatment of Christian and Jews under Islam rule. To quote: ” In the classical Islamic ideology of conquest, the first choice offered to non-Muslims was conversion to Islam; the second choice was the sword; and the third was surrender. In The Third Choice, theologian Mark Durie critiques the history and ideology of surrender – the “third choice” – which determined the lived reality of dhimmis (non-Muslims) under Muslim rule. The worldview of dhimmitude, it is argued, offers indispensable keys for understanding current trends in global politics, including the widening impact of sharia revival, deterioration of human rights for non-Muslims in Islamic societies, jihad terrorism, recurring patterns of Western appeasement, and the often fraught relationship between migrant Muslim communities in the West and their host societies. “ Worth watching and pondering………
I am not sure why some of your bloggers seems to think that being a Sufi makes so much difference. Sufis share the same predominently sapiental view of the Godhead as other Muslims. This has no bearing on whether a violent of nonviolent view of jihad is adopted in practice. If Imam Rauf espouses a peaceful approach and has at heart the wellbeing of his fellow human beings, this is because he (as a human being) has that particular orientation. It does not arise out of his adherence to Sufi mysticism, which is essentially neoplatonic and, hence, morally neutral.
It is important to remember that neoplatonists (such as Plotinus and Porphyry) were vehemently antiChristian. The same applies to Hasan al-Banna, himself a Sufi, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood. This society was originally founded to generate opposition to expanding Christian missionary work in Egypt. It is also significant that much Islamist expansion in Africa (such as in the Sudan) has been inspired and led by Sufis. Perhaps it is also worth noting that most of the white middle-class converts to Islam also come in thru the Sufi door. This can be seen from their many websites. These provided a powerful backbone to Isalmist expansion in the USA, Cananda and the UK.
Thx, Mike. But I would not want anyone to think “guilt by association,” here, just because al-Banna happened to be a Sufi. And I would strongly disagree that Sufi mysticism, or any sort, is morally neutral. Also, if “opposition to expanding Christian missionary work in Egypt” was part of the Muslim Brothers brief (no doubt it was), it paled before their chief goals of wanting to establish an Islamic alternative for the whole of life to counter the liberal nationalism, Western capitalism, and international communism in Egyptian society in the 1930s and 1940s, which they blamed for that society’s ills. The Brothers were reacting, big time, and very negatively, to these Big Three ideological constructs, according to scholars I have studied on this.
The alleged Sufi status of this mosque does make a difference to me.
The facts of history are indisputable, neither Christianity nor Islam have lived up to the “highest ideals” of their adherents. Our host, for example, is a man of deep conviction who espouses non-violent resolution of conflict in the realm of foreign policy; but the history of Christianity is anything but non-violent. Does that mean Charlie’s site is a mere “straw dog” set up to woo the unsuspecting with words of peace, love and pacifism so they can later be transformed into violent Crusaders by clerics lurking in the shadows? (An Egyptian Muslim reading these essays and posts, and knowing the foreign policy history of the Christian nations in the Middle East, might have his suspicions.) The answer, however, is no. Like the Sufi poet Rumi, our host adheres to the highest tenets of his faith, but the institutions (the collective bodies) of either religion simply do not.
Will this Sufi cleric espouse the highest and noblest ideals of his religion? Only time will tell; but I feel that I must give him the benefit of the doubt.
Another perspective which differs. http://bit.ly/b2AMVR
Thx, Graham, for taking time to send the link to Fouad Ajami’s op-ed piece in the WSJ about the “mosque” controversy. I’m pretty familiar w/ Ajami’s writings and talks. He’s very sharp and well-connected and has knowledge of and access to a lot of info that I don’t. So I was curious to see how he differs from my perspective on the controversy. Remarkably, he ends his piece with: “We don’t always assert all the ‘rights’ that we can get away with. The faith is honored when the faith bends to necessity and discretion.” This is a line that could be inserted into the second half of my “mosque” article — in my appeal to Imam Rauf — without missing a beat. Where Ajami and I differ is in how we get there. He seems to be arguing from the POV of the benefits of social and political liberalism in America, which, as he notes, strongly appealed to immigrants, whereas I am arguing about the function and purpose of law and constitutional rights and the capacity of people under them. Best, C.
A gathering of Muslim leaders from across the USA have been discussing Park51, “the ground zero mosque,” and have just announced that as Americans they have a freedom to worship where they choose. They have also committed themselves to increased dialogue. I have written my further thoughts on this, developing your own, Charles: “Making room and bringing healing – a call for a grand and gracious gesture”.
http://www.reconciliationtalk.com/2010/09/making-room-and-bringing-healing-a-call-for-a-grand-and-gracious-gesture.html
Thanks for this, Charles. A good piece and I basically agree with you. Facts are facts and you have made them clear, as have many US news articles I have read. Frankly facts don’t seem valuable currency when rhetoric is supreme. His Sufism is less spoken of, but I attribute that to fact that most wouldn’t know or care what a Sufi is. It’s enough to say “Muslim” and allow the stereotypes to say everything else.
I am convinced too of the basic issue being America’s unhealed woundedness from the horrific events of 9-11 which are seared on its cultural memory as well as that of every man and woman. I agree that law doesn’t heal, grace does and wisdom releases grace. Your piece to Iman Rauf is spot on. Sadly in reality he now has to speak to this not just as an individual and not just on behalf of his own board, but it has become a national Muslim issue.
I am however reluctant to leave it there. For me the wisdom of peacemaking says at this point – don’t point fingers but take a look in the mirror. (In Jesus words, don’t try to take speck from your brother’s eye before taking the log from your own.) Call me a cynic, but if the Muslims withdraw the predominant sound will be the roar of victory, not a warm response to grace. The church which preaches a message of grace and forgiveness has been slow to speak prophetically on this one. Especially the Evangelical church which prides itself on its evangelical message!!
Very good article. I had no idea this Imam was a Sufi. That has been left out of the few interviews I have heard. (I am a fan of the famous Sufi poet, Rumi.) Unfortunately, the lessons of history do not “bode well” for a positive outcome at this particular new mosque (or any other mosque in the US). Nationalism ALWAYS trumps international theology or philosophy (the bitter lessons of 1890 to 1914). It is just too easy to use the religion of nationalist patriotism to whip up an uneducated and unenlightened population, anywhere in the world. Further exacerbating the problem in the US is that the press is a fourth arm of government, an unelected one, that exercises more real power than any of the other three branches.
Hope the miracle happens. Relevant, balanced, and well written article! Waiting for the book. 🙂
Charles, Just finished reading your article. Glad I read it. While I don’t think a site change will happen, who knows? My humble opinion is that Imam Rauf will not budge an inch. Won’t judge him. Only God knows what is in his heart, so will leave it @ that. God bless.
Charles, not only did you aid in bringing some very important information to light, you also acknowledged that the choice to build ultimately lies in the hands of Imam Rauf and not through legislation. I hope this article reaches wide circulation.
Thanks for an enlightening and balanced article. From over this side of the pond, it looks as though much of the anger against the Cordoba project is fueled by a kind of right-wing judgmentalism – the same kind of right-wing judgementalism over here in the UK that refused for so long to contemplate negotiating with IRA/ Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. It seems that liberals on both sides of the Atlantic (whatever their blindness may be on other matters) have a much better feel for some salient truths in situations like this.
Thanks Charles. This is a rare example of what Eugen Rosenstock Huessy would call true speech in a society that is fast become “speechless.” Instead of seeking to create the future with our words, we seemed to be trapped in language that reinforces division, flames anger, and distorts our ability to see one another and the world around clearly. I pray it will be received as an invitation to a painful conversation that our country desperately needs to have.
The point about the group being Sufi is very important, and this is the first time I’ve heard it mentioned. It helps clear up many misunderstandings. Imagine if the public was told that a Catholic group with links to the IRA were planning on building on the site of Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland – can you imagine the outcry? But then it was discovered it was not a Catholic group but the Quakers, and they wanted an open house for all people to come in to sit quietly and meditate / pray / learn about pacifism and conscientious objection to war. I reckon that’s a sort of similar comparison.
Thanks for flagging this up, Charles.
Thanks for making the time to get this information out!
You use the word “factory” a few times, but only once in the correct context. “Burlington Coat Factory” is a discount retail enterprise, and the term “factory” in its name is entirely a marketing gimmick.
http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/
Thus, the space proposed is just more retail rather than “factory” space.
I agree entirely with the point you make, but it helps to be accurate when describing the nature of the property under consideration.
Thx for the heads-up, Dave. Having bought coats at Burlington, I should have known. Hopefully, the article now more accurately reflects the facts! Thx, again. I hope to have the second, quite different, part ready in a few days, after one more conference call, if you have time to stop back.
This is a fascinating approach, Charles. I’m looking forward to the second part of this piece
Thanks, Chris. I’ll have that second part up by the middle of the month.