Building Mosques, Burning Bridges

If a filibuster-proof majority were required today to grant Muslims the right to build the Ground Zero Mosque, they would have it. 61 percent of American voters, a recent poll has found, believe Muslims have the right to build a mosque on Ground Zero.

The problem, however, is that 64 percent of Americans still believe it is simply not the right thing to do. Just as they would not seek to place a church across from Auschwitz, out of respect for the victims of 9/11, they have agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (a Democrat) that the mosque should be built somewhere else.

This is intolerance?

To read statements by Daisy Khan, wife of the mosque’s imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, one would think that Islam itself – and its place in America – were at stake. “This is like a metastasized anti-Semitism,” said Mrs. Khan in an interview with ABC News. “That’s what we feel right now. It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia – it’s hate of Muslims.”

Hatred of Muslims?

Times like these require the cool heads of responsible leaders. Unfortunately, Mrs. Khan is not one of them. With the exception of New York Governor David Paterson, the Ground Zero Mosque controversy has seen an astonishing withdrawal of civic leadership.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for example, is questioning the motives of the Ground Zero opposition, accusing them of “ginning up” the controversy. For his part, President Obama has abdicated any leadership of the issue. In so doing he has overseen the complete unraveling of the goodwill he derived from his Cairo initiative. According to an August 12 Rasmussen poll, 36 percent of Americans expect Muslim-American relations to worsen over the next year, while just 11 percent expect them to improve. Last year, those numbers were reversed.

This is not to say that the proponents of the Mosque do not deserve our sympathy. They make a convincing case. They argue that no mosque is in fact being built on Ground Zero; it is, instead, merely a smaller mosque outgrowing itself. This small, local mosque naturally does not want to move – it has found its home (it was even damaged during the 9/11 attacks, according to one report) – and will be located no fewer than 4-5 blocks away from the hallowed ground of Ground Zero, virtually out of sight (reportedly), and just one block closer to Ground Zero than the mosque’s current location. Though most New Yorkers oppose it, more Manhattans favor it than do not (46-36 percent). Furthermore, it is more than just a mosque that will be built – it is a Cultural Center that will build bridges between misunderstood faiths.

While these arguments have merit, the opponents of the mosque must be heard as well. They have questions that deserve answers: Why must the current mosque be converted from a nondescript, smallish building to a 13-story leviathan? Why will it cost $100 million? Where is this funding coming from, anyway? Jon Stewart says Saudi Prince Waleed bin Talal is one backer. Who else?

After all, it is not as if Islamic financing has been unproblematic in recent history. Putting aside concerns of illegal (terrorist) financing, the source of the financing also holds implications for the content of the Center’s message – if it coming from Saudi Arabia, it will undoubtedly fund an interpretation of Islam favorable to Wahhabism. New Yorkers, understandably, wish to know what that message will be.

For proponents of the Mosque, this is a lot to chew on. While that may be, answering these kinds of questions is precisely what building bridges requires. It requires listening to your neighbors. It requires dialogue and understanding. It requires painful discussions and yes, it requires compromise.

The Mosque’s backers do not seem to understand this. When opposition started to form, instead of “getting out in front” of the controversy and increasing the transparency of their project – as skeptics had asked – they instead turned insular, stubborn. For his part, New York governor David Paterson did the right thing by offering alternatives, going so far as to offer the Mosque state property at another site out of respect to all parties. But instead of seeking to work with his fellow citizen and fellow neighbors, Mr. Abdul Rauf rejected the solution out of hand.

“How much more foresighted would it have been if the imam who is the developer of the project had been willing to hear what we are actually talking about?” Paterson went on to say.

As someone who spent many years of his adult life working to build bridges between Muslims and Americans, I am personally saddened and disappointed by the obstinacy of the Mosque proponents. Stubborn zeal is admirable if the goal were in fact the defense of a persecuted religion. But the avowed goal has been phrased much differently. The avowed goal of the project, as stated by the mosque’s imam, is to build bridges.

If burning them were its true intent, only then could this project be considered a resounding success. This project has done nothing to improve the unease Americans are feeling toward American-Islamic relations. 9/11 may be nearly 10 years removed, but the shooting at Fort Hood and the near-success of Yemen’s “underwear” bomber are not. Any honest interfaith effort must take the raw feelings these incidents have left behind into account.

It is as if Mr. Abdul Rauf and his backers do not concern themselves with current events. Should we not worry of the story of the fork-tongued, Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki? Like Mr. Abdul Rauf, Anwar al-Awlaki once praised America and American ideals.

Is it “intolerance” if Americans wish to peer under the hood first before they see this Center built or if they ultimately deem its message unsuitable for the site of the largest massacre in American history?

Mr. Abdul Rauf, after all, does bear more than a little resemblance to al-Awlaki’s former self. Mr. Abdul Rauf, like the earlier al-Awlaki and many other clerics with anti-American inclinations, likes to hedge his opinions of the United States of America. Americans, in the midst of a decade of wars in and around the Muslim world, are unsure of what to make of this lack of commitment. To name a few examples, Mr. Abdul Rauf has called America an “accessory” to 9/11, making it that much more difficult to stomach his prominence around Ground Zero’s hallowed ground.

With regards to the American Declaration of Independence, Mr. Abdul Rauf has only managed to say that “it speaks of principles that comply with Islam.” Which of these principles do not comply? Life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

Americans have trouble with this kind of tepid support. And why shouldn’t they? Perhaps Mr. Abdul Rauf means no harm by it – perhaps this is his best effort at reconciling his mutual devotion to his faith and his life in this country. It is also possible that, for most New Yorkers and most Americans, his best may not be good enough.

Certainly it would have been much better for all involved if Mr. Abdul Rauf and his backers had been more open and proactive.

But whatever the case, as is now clear, if it were bridges he were building, Mr. Abdul Rauf would have agreed to move the mosque long ago.

Andre Castillo is an M.A. graduate of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).  He writes frequently on issues of U.S. politics and foreign policy.

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

Picture above from Flickr user sninky-chan licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 License