FOREIGN POLICY SEPTEMBER 17, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Amid all the controversy surrounding the Ground Zero Islamic center and mosque, the most memorable comment I’ve seen was made by a New York State assemblyman named Henry Meigs.
“The constitution of this state,” Meigs said, “guarantees equally the religion of all. The Jew, who believes the blessed Savior an imposter; the Egyptian who worships a crocodile or an onion; the Pagan who worships the sun; the Indian who pays divine honors to sticks and stones; the worshipper of Odin; the Chinese or the Mahometans. All persuasions, denominations or religions are equally protected.”
The language is antique—not to mention colorful—because Meigs made his statement in 1818. (You can find the quote in Ilyon Woo’s new book, The Great Divorce.) He was speaking in defense of the Shakers, a communal, celibate sect now best known for its furniture and for a tune Aaron Copland borrowed for Appalachian Spring. (The Shakers also invented the clothes pin.) But in the early part of the nineteenth century, they were suspected of all manner of malfeasance: murder, torture, kidnapping, child abuse, a conspiracy to gain world domination; even, despite their vows of chastity, “licentiousness.” Because of their strange ways (Taliban-like, a Shaker woman was prohibited from sewing a button on a man’s shirt if he was wearing it), they were also accused of undermining the institution of marriage. Meigs’s statement is inspiring not only because of the very contemporary sentiments it expresses, but also because it reminds us that the principle of religious freedom is as embedded in American history as is the bigotry Meigs was responding to.
Friends of mine who oppose the construction of the Ground Zero mosque insistently assure me that bigotry is not the only reason why someone might wish the center were built elsewhere, and I have no reason to doubt them because I know for a fact that they are not bigots. Even so, I cannot deny—nor would my friends—that animosity toward all Muslims and to the religion of Islam itself is a major motivating force behind the opposition. There is simply no getting around the truth that we would hear no objections if a church or synagogue were being proposed for the site. It’s hard to see how Henry Meigs isn’t relevant today.
Yes, my friends reply, the backers of the community center have the right to build it, but should they build it? It’s all a matter of sensitivity. The vast majority of Americans are offended by the project and however irrational their emotions, those feelings should be respected, if only for the sake of social and interfaith peace. This is a powerful point; reality is always an attractive argument. But is this one of those times when principle has to be upheld even if the consequences are unpleasant?
Since the modern culture clash with the Muslim world began, the urge to avoid giving offense to the emotionally aggrieved has had a sorry, cringe-making history. Turn to Christopher Hitchens’s chapter on Salman Rushdie in his memoir, Hitch-22, for a reminder of how the opening battle in this conflict played out. It’s not a pretty picture.
When the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his fatwa against Rushdie for his novel, The Satanic Verses, in 1989, condemnations rained down from the left and the right, but not so much on the Ayatollah as on the author who had provoked him. Religious leaders—the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, spokesmen for the Vatican—all declared the problem was blasphemy, not censorship or death threats. Rushdie was said to have “abused freedom of speech.” Hitchens writes that “every ‘official’ human-rights committee in the nation’s capital turned me down when I asked them to sponsor a visit by Salman.” President George H.W. Bush refused to get involved, and his successor, Bill Clinton, agreed to see Rushdie in the White House, but only if no photographs were taken. Bookstores refused to sell the novel.
A second chapter in this depressing narrative was the Dutch government’s harassment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali after she had offended Muslims by criticizing their treatment of women. But the next eruption to attract widespread American attention was the episode of the Danish cartoons in 2006. Muslims upset with how Muhammad was being portrayed—or that he was being portrayed at all!—demonstrated or rioted in Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere. At least 200 people died. Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, said that while he respected the right of freedom of speech, “freedom of speech is never absolute.” The second Bush administration’s position on the cartoons was: “We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.”
Since then, a German opera company suspended a performance of Mozart’s Idomeneo because it included a scene with Muhammad’s severed head, and the creators of “South Park” were prohibited from showing an image of Muhammad on television—and then prohibited from satirizing the prohibition. Last year, in a particularly bizarre example of the impulse to avoid giving offense, Yale University Press decided not to reproduce the Danish cartoons in a book about the Danish cartoons. Especially ominous was the press’s decision to exclude images of Muhammad from the past, including one by the nineteenth-century artist Gustave Doré, showing him being tortured in Hell. Go one or two more steps down this path and we can say goodbye to The Merchant of Venice, Huckleberry Finn, and The Catcher in the Rye.
Let’s disentangle a couple of strands here. The U.S. government has a legitimate interest in maintaining good relations with the Muslim world even when it is behaving irrationally, and so it may from time to time issue statements that sound—or are—pusillanimous. Similarly, American newspapers and the Yale press may have refrained from reproducing the Danish cartoons out of a genuine fear of violence. The Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses was murdered, its Italian translator was stabbed, and its Norwegian publisher shot. Self-censorship based on fear is not a position to be proud of, but on the other hand it’s hardly honorable to demand that other people—editors, translators, secretaries, clerks—endanger their lives for your own heroic principles. (Hitchens points out that the staffs of the bookstores that refused to handle The Satanic Verses passed a resolution expressing their willingness to sell it.)
Up till now, the culture clash has moved in one direction only. Muslims have taken offense at something, and the West has rushed to reassure and pacify them. The mosque controversy reverses these roles. Today, it’s millions of Americans who are feeling aggrieved. Fear of violence is not an issue in this case (though the backers of the center have no doubt been subjected to numerous death threats). If building the center proceeds, there may be demonstrations and protests, and the Democratic Party will pay a political price, but hundreds of people won’t die, and any violence directed at the mosque will surely be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
The question at this point is whether the center has to be built at the proposed site. It’s understandable that the supporters would want to resist yielding to bigotry, irrationality, and intimidation, but on a simply pragmatic basis, everyone should hope that some solution can be reached so that the feelings of millions of Americans are respected. After all, the sponsors of the center say they are interested in building bridges among peoples. This aim would be better served by moving the mosque a few blocks away, even if that means bending a cherished principle. And just think of the good will that would be generated across the country. Nonetheless, if compromise proves to be impossible, then Henry Meigs must be the one to have the final word.
By wonderful coincidence, Pastor Terry Jones’s threat to burn Korans puts the issue of the Islamic center into sharper focus.
Jones is a poster child for everything that is wrong with the opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. He is a bigot who has declared that “Islam and Sharia law were responsible for 9/11.” Last year, to the consternation of its neighbors, his church put up a sign saying “Islam is of the devil.” And he is ignorant: He has not read the Koran and is obviously unaware of the philosophy associated with book-burning.
Right now, we can’t know for sure if Jones will follow through on his threat, or if he doesn’t, whether some other zealot will. (And just wait till next year and the tenth anniversary of 9/11—the opportunity for a true bonfire of the vanities.) Jones has pigheadedly shrugged off arguments that his actions might provoke a violent response in the Muslim world, or could harm the United States. The feelings of others are not his concern. Unlike most of the other individuals caught up in the culture war with Islam, he is a provocateur, and deliberately intends to give offense. (Squint hard enough and you may be able to make out the ghost of Lenny Bruce.) For this reason, he represents a particularly pure case of what we Americans mean when we say we stand for freedom. It’s easy enough to defend someone you agree with, much harder to stand up for someone you despise.
So what should be the reaction to Pastor Jones? We can condemn his message of hate. We can lament the damage he may do to the interests of the United States. But at the end of the day we must defend his right to burn the Koran—and not just with a sense of disapproval and regret but, because of what it says about the values of our country, with a grudging, embarrassed sense of pride.
Barry Gewen has been an editor at The New York Times Book Review for over 20 years. He has written frequently for The Book Review, as well as for other sections ofThe Times. His essays have also appeared in World Affairs, The American Interest,World Policy Journal, and Dissent.
12 comments
Some may see Imam Rauf and his team as, at best, unintentionally "deliberately provocative", and, at the very least, simplistically self-centered, and now in need to build bridges WITHIN American Muslim communities. As reported by David Caruso for Associated Press on 09 17 2010: "...A summit of U.S. Muslim organizations is planned for Saturday and Sunday in New York City to address both the project and a rise in anti-Muslim sentiments and rhetoric that has accompanied the debate over the project. It has yet to be seen whether the group will emerge with a firm stand on the proposed community center, dubbed Park51. The primary purpose of the two-day meeting is to talk about ways to combat religious bigotry. But Shaik Ubaid of the Islamic Leadership Council of Metropolitan New York, one of the groups organizing the gathering, said he has a growing sense that the project is being embraced by American Muslims and Muslim groups after some initial trepidation. "Once it became a rallying cry for extremists, we had no choice but to stand with Feisal Rauf," he said, ...Groups scheduled to participate in the summit include the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim Alliance of North America and the Council on American Islamic Relations. ... There was much less outreach to Muslims, Ubaid said. Rauf, he said, may have been a regular talking head for the national news media on Muslim world affairs, but among New York City imams he was something of an outsider, Ubaid said. "He was not that involved with the local Muslim community," Ubaid said. He said that included a general failure to round up support for the center before going public with his plans. "Had we consulted us, we probably would have told him, gently, no." Even after the proposal became public, there was a hesitation by some Muslim groups to quickly endorse the idea, in part because of questions about its feasibility. ..." [and, if they are following the news, questions about supporting Rauf the Union City slumlord; Daisy the IRS "'church status" renter/tax dodger, and Sharif El-Gamal, the developer whose SoHo properties is being evicted from their offices for failing to pay rent a second time which apparently gave Sharif enough money to start paying back taxes on 45 Park Place on Friday even though NYC (as reported in the WSJ version) settled the tax appeal in May. Say what you want about Pastor Jones, but no one is reporting his personal contempt for the rule of law and private morality. Perhaps it is time to start looking at Rauf as an ambitious man posing as a man of religion in order to scam everyone]
- K2K
September 18, 2010 at 9:39am
""Once it became a rallying cry for extremists, we had no choice but to stand with Feisal Rauf," has the same rationale as "Once it became a rallying cry for extremists, we had no choice but to stand with Pastor Jones" It doesn't make sense. If you consider something to be wrong, mistaken, ill-timed, ill-mannered, it does not suddenly become a cause celebre just because people you don't like are also against it for the wrong reasons.
- noga1
September 18, 2010 at 12:38pm
Gewen writes "So what should be the reaction to Pastor Jones? We can condemn his message of hate. We can lament the damage he may do to the interests of the United States. But at the end of the day we must defend his right to burn the Koran—and not just with a sense of disapproval and regret but, because of what it says about the values of our country, with a grudging, embarrassed sense of pride." OK, so you have taken the same stance on the burning that Palin has on building the mosque. Yes, they have a right, but you wish they wouldn't. Isn't this really a one paragraph article? You almost had me convinced you were going some place new on the first page. Both the burning and the mosque are insensitive. But the responses to each have been fascinating. How about an article contrasting them?
- seattleeng
September 19, 2010 at 12:56am
"There is simply no getting around the truth that we would hear no objections if a church or synagogue were being proposed for the site." Exactly! It makes any arguments in opposition to Park51 beside the point.
- scrubby
September 19, 2010 at 3:12pm
"There is simply no getting around the truth that we would hear no objections if a church or synagogue were being proposed for the site." I don't think he is right. There would be objections to any religious edifice that purported to re-cast the history of 9/11 in its own image.
- noga1
September 19, 2010 at 5:34pm
And the fact is that no synagogue or church were being proposed for the site. Why is that?
- noga1
September 19, 2010 at 5:36pm
"There would be objections to any religious edifice that purported to re-cast the history of 9/11 in its own image." Of course, there would be objections if that was the goal of Imam Rauf. We just can't ascribe devious motives to him in order to justify our objections. Or perhaps you know something that I don't know. Any links for that claim? "And the fact is that no synagogue or church were being proposed for the site. Why is that?" I have no idea, but I know it's not out of respect for hollowed ground. After all, there are all kinds of unsavory establishments -- bars, porn shops etc -- all around the site, and no one has complained yet.
- scrubby
September 19, 2010 at 8:38pm
"The prudence of days past was now a distant memory. These activists who came in the 1990s—the time of multiculturalism and of what the late Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called the "disuniting of America"—would insist on a full-scale revision of the American creed. American liberalism had broken with American patriotism, and the self-styled activists would give themselves over to a militancy that would have shocked their forerunners. It is out of that larger history that this project at Ground Zero is born. There is a great Arab and Islamic tale. It happened in the early years of Islam, but it speaks to this controversy. It took place in A.D. 638, the time of Islam's triumphs. The second successor to the Prophet, the Caliph Omar—to orthodox Muslims the most revered of the four Guided Caliphs for the great conquests that took place during his reign—had come to Jerusalem to accept the city's surrender. Patriarch Sophronius, the city's chief magistrate, is by his side for the ceremony of surrender. Prayer time comes for Omar while the patriarch is showing him the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The conqueror asks where he could spread out his prayer rug. Sophronius tells him that he could stay where he was. Omar refuses, because his followers, he said, might then claim for Islam the holy shrine of the Christians. Omar stepped outside for his prayer. 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. " http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703743504575493711825224290.html
- noga1
September 20, 2010 at 9:53am
"...In his new statement, Sayyid Imam [Dr. Fadl] expresses opposition to the proposed construction of Cordoba House near Ground Zero in Manhattan: "Although the 9/11 bombings were contrary to the teachings of Islam, they have been attributed to Islam. Osama bin Laden deceived people, saying that he works to champion Islam. Then there appeared a contemporary Islamic preacher [or "a promoter of discord" – see our introduction] who wants to build a mosque near the site of the bombings in New York [i.e. Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf]. I say that it is not permitted to build this mosque on this site, for two reasons. "The first is that there is no Islamic obligation to build the mosque on this site [in particular], since a Muslim is allowed to pray anywhere that is ritually pure. The second reason is that [building the mosque] entails harm to the victims of these bombings, who were killed in an operation that was contrary to the teachings of Islam, and reminds them and others of their grief." The statement said further that the proposed Cordoba House "is a mosque of discord (fitna), and one is not allowed to aid in its construction in any manner, even if the Americans were to agree to it, since [if it is built] this damage and discord will continue for generations to come." ..." http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4618.htm from the lengthy profile of Dr. Fadl "The Rebellion Within: An Al Qaeda mastermind questions terrorism." by Lawrence Wright June 2, 2008 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all "...Fadl was one of the first members of Al Qaeda’s top council. Twenty years ago, he wrote two of the most important books in modern Islamist discourse; Al Qaeda used them to indoctrinate recruits and justify killing. Now Fadl was announcing a new book, rejecting Al Qaeda’s violence. “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that,” Fadl wrote in his fax, which was sent from Tora Prison, in Egypt. ..." [K2K postscript: It would seem Dr. Fadl, Sayyid Imam, is the true moderate today. The faux-Imam Rauf did not even attend the Islamic Summit in New York. Te NYT reported in a blogpost today, Rauf "stayed away for security reasons" I wonder if Rauf was afraid of being in the same room with so many angry Imams :) As to scrubby's questions. There is no need for a church or synagogue in that location, with the possible exception of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was totally destroyed on 9/11. For nine years, the Port Authority and all levels of New York government have stonewalled St. Nicholas on compensation and whether they can rebuild on or near the same site, which was south of the WTC towers. More intriguing is whether Rauf and his amateur Real Estate developer partner Sharif El-Gamal know what they are doing. They do not own the whole site. They do not seem to have any money. Both are facing court cases for being "slumlords" with their respective residential rental properties. Rauf and his wife seem to be in violation of IRS tax code with their web of non-profits. There is no plan, only discord and controversy. Rauf's father was deeply involved in the decades long process to build the Islamic Center at 97th Street, Manhattan's first mosque. It is hard to believe that Rauf is so naive that he did not plan for his Cordoba House on Park Place to be a symbol for discord, never a reality. If he wanted to build bridges and encourage dialog, he would have returned to the United States from his other home in Malaysia in May. To stay silent all summer in Malaysia while controversy and misinformation stormed, only to reappear just in time to publish an op-ed in the NYT on the eve of Rosh Hashonah was not the behaviour one would expect from someone genuinely interested in peace through dialog. Rauf is embraced by the religious left of America (Jim Wallis, Rev. Morton, the Chautauqua Institute, J Street). What better way to strip 9/11/2001 of it's emotional hold on the overwhelming majority of Americans than to strip Ground Zero of any claim as sacred ground even though the ashes of those vaporized on 9/11 are still there, including in 45 Park Place - where a piece of UA 175 fell through the roof - the sole reason Rauf wanted this specific location. The National Memorial opens on 9/11/2011, the day Rauf originally wanted for his groundbreaking. yeah, rambling - but what better conquest for Islam than robbing America of her ability to mourn 9/11/2001 with dignity and respect, "for generations to come" in the heart of what Rev. Jesse Jackson once called 'Hymietown', still called New York City by most.
- K2K
September 21, 2010 at 12:10am
Thanks, K2K. Much prefer your informed and insightful "rambling" to the smug moralistic certainties of the folks who can only see through their B&W lenses.
- willjames77
September 21, 2010 at 9:07am
willjames77, your thanks means a lot to me. I have always thought 'conspiracy theories' to be the realm of others. But, as I have followed all the multiple threads of THIS story, two points disturb me. Rauf's embrace by the left from Peace4Perdana to Jim Wallis, Rev. Morton, and the Chautauqua Institute. And, the recent New Yorker profile of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, whose father was also an Imam (Pakistani) who took his family to Kuwait, where the non-Kuwaitis were taught mostly by Palestinians. Rauf had the same childhood, although 16 years earlier. I just have to think Rauf's plan all along was to create the discord to rob 9/11 of it's emotional power. Which would make the anti-war left in America very happy if that helped end America's War on Terror. One of the storylines that was raised, and so far dropped, is about the sales price of 45 Park Place by the estate of Stephen Pomerantz, whose brother Melvin as executor seems to have approved. I am really not so sure that the Pomerantz's refused several higher offers. But, Melvin donates to the Chautauqua Institute, one of Rauf's earliest allies. I suppose the only good news is that enough other issues (tax status, lack of funds, slumlordism) have emerged about Rauf and El-Gamal (and Elzanaty, the main investor) to put the brakes on this project. Even the NYT is being less cheerleaderly although they are certainly not going to be the source for any investigative journalism. And, regardless of what the conclave of Islamic leaders said yesterday, there does seem to be a widespread understanding among the majority of Americans (and even among the liberals outside whatever leftist conspiracy may be afoot) that Islam does not reciprocate tolerance. One of the Muslim leaders yesterday invoked Rosa Parks as a metaphor for Rauf and Park51. I read enough comments attached to some New York articles to see a definite annoyance on the part of African-American Christians, who have, so far, been among the strongest supporters of the GZM in the various polls of New York City residents. Over-reach can become blowback very quickly.
- K2K
September 21, 2010 at 12:30pm
"Where Does the Mosque Backlash Fit Into the History of American Tolerance?" We get a little history from this article, but not too much. For example, the 19th century was know as the anti-Catholic century in the USA. The anti-Catholicism of the 19th century spilled over into the 20th century, as well. We had the Know-Nothings, the KKK and Protestant sectarianism determined to minimize Catholic influence in government and society. The rise of Father Charles E. Coughlin, the anti-Roosevelt and anti-Semetic radio priest of the 1930s, and Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, elevated the status of Catholics and they began to make some progress on the religio-status scale. You will recall that Joseph P. Kennedy was a great friend of Joseph McCarthy and his son, Robert Kennedy, appointed by Senator McCarthy, worked as assistant counsel of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. It has been noted by contemporary architectural historians that early US Catholic churches, were designed to blend into their surroundings, with simple facades and low rise in height. A conscious effort to keep a low-profile and not upset the native Protestant majority. The 20th century is noted for its Anti-Semitism. The KKK, Father Coughlin, Fascists and racialism. For the most part, synagogues in the USA are also low rise, small buildings, designed to be largely inconspicuous, and certainly not splashy. This is particularly true along the US east coast. How unfortunate the propsed Islamic culture center/mosque is so avant-guard, splashy, rather tall, for low-rise Park Place. It is a loud, high-octive, aria, in glass and steel. I believe the promoters have broken with the architectural past, for houses of worship, for newly resident religions, and attempted to catapulte themselves to the front of the line. Manhattan's highly successful 92nd Street YM &YWHA is less than 10 stories tall, in a city where Jews far outnumber the faithful Islamic population. The 92nd Street "Y" is a solid and stately building, and certainly not splashy. In my opinion, the proposed Islamic center should be re-designed to show greater sensitivity and respect for the surroundings and a more modest presence for a more modest American Islam.
- LawrenceGulotta
September 22, 2010 at 1:27pm