NYC Imam Defends Mosque Plan in Op-Ed

[웃 910]

Imam behind NYC Islamic community center says it will include prayer spaces for other faiths

NEW YORK – A proposed Islamic community center near ground zero will include separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and people of other faiths, the imam behind plans for the facility wrote in an op-ed piece published online Tuesday.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wrote in The New York Times that the attention surrounding the plans for the $100 million community center just blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks "reflects the degree to which people care about the very American values under debate: recognition of the rights of others, tolerance and freedom of worship."

He said it was critical that Americans "not back away" from completing the project.

"The wonderful outpouring of support for our right to build this community center from across the social, religious and political spectrum seriously undermines the ability of anti-American radicals to recruit young, impressionable Muslims by falsely claiming that America persecutes Muslims for their faith," he wrote. "These efforts by radicals at distortion endanger our national security and the personal security of Americans worldwide."

The comments published in the Times were among Rauf's most extensive on the Islamic center since national leaders began weighing in on the debate earlier this year.

For months, the debate has focused on whether the plans for the center would include a mosque just blocks north of where Islamic extremists destroyed the World Trade Center and killed nearly 2,800 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

Opponents say the mosque should be moved farther away out of sensitivity for the families of 9/11 victims; supporters say religious freedom should be protected.

For the past two months, Rauf has been traveling abroad, including taking a 15-day trip paid for by the U.S. Department of State to promote religious tolerance in the Middle East. While on the trip, he occasionally spoke about the center, mostly to local Arab media. He returned to the United States on Sunday.

In the op-ed piece, he explained his reasons for not speaking out more and sooner, saying he felt it would "not be right to comment from abroad."

"It would be better if I addressed these issues once I returned home to America, and after I could confer with leaders of other faiths who have been deliberating with us over this project," he wrote. "My life's work has been focused on building bridges between religious groups and never has that been as important as it is now."

In the nearly 1,000-word op-ed, he outlined his vision for the center, referring to it as a "shared space" for the community that will include "a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks."

"I am very sensitive to the feelings of the families of victims of 9/11, as are my fellow leaders of many faiths," he wrote.

Rauf is one of the directors of the nonprofit organization that was recently formed to raise money for the divisive lower Manhattan project, sometimes known as Park51. The imam referred to the project as the "Cordoba House" in his op-ed piece.

[^_^ 5,021]

NEW YORK – A proposed Islamic community center near ground zero will include separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and people of other faiths...

<== skeptical

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I support their right to build, even there, but still think it is not the most sensitive choice of locations. Glad he finally put himself out there on the public record though.

How did he miss the memo on the renaming of the project?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And its "insensitive" because...?

[IndigoSkies 168]

I support their right to build, even there, but still think it is not the most sensitive choice of locations. Glad he finally put himself out there on the public record though.

How did he miss the memo on the renaming of the project?

The project still remains Cordoba Initiative. The name of the building has been changed from Cordoba House to Park51.

[evli1966 88]

And its "insensitive" because...?

It is ok go ahead and put your head back in the sand and ignore the issue of sensitivity.

That is all you have done during these topics:whistle:

[ready4ONE 5,400]

And its "insensitive" because...?

You keep asking and I keep telling you. An OpEd piece in Forbes today sums up my thoughts on the problem nicely.

Partial quote:

Rauf could have done wonders for his cause, and put the bigots back in their box, if he had just had the foresight (and humility) to give a comparable speech. All he had to do was stand up in front of the WTC site and make four simple affirmations that are wholly consistent with his life's work: 1) I categorically reject the killing of innocent people in the name of Islam; 2) I will never take any money from Hamas or any organization that would cause New Yorkers to doubt my abhorrence of terrorism; 3) I love America and the freedoms and opportunities it provides the people of my faith; and 4) I want to build this community center on this site because there's no better way to show the world our commitment to the core American values of tolerance and diversity.

Sadly, Rauf has done just the opposite, and given New Yorkers cause to wonder who he actually is and why he's taking this seemingly provocative step. The absolute low point, and the moment the imam lost all credibility with me, is when the New York Post asked his spokesman in mid-August whether the project's backers would rule out taking any money from Iran. This should have been a no-brainer--there's no way Cordoba House would or could ever accept money from a state sponsor of terrorism. But the spokesman lamely responded, "I can't comment on that," leading to a needlessly corrosive front-page story headlined "Iran Cash Might Fund Ground Zero Mosque." If Rauf and his team don't have the basic savvy and sensitivity to handle a softball like that, how can we expect them to win our faith in their fidelity over the long haul?

From this, you could say that Rauf failed a fundamentally New York, and in this case totally relevant, test of respect. He was asking his neighbors to come out of their comfort zone and embrace his faith and cause at their sacred space. Yet, even as he talked about Cordoba House as a way to extend a hand between faiths, he gave us nothing to hold onto in return. In particular, he made no effort, publicly or privately, to cultivate the reasonable voices within the 9/11 families, which would have been a powerful signal of his commitment to the project's mission and his ability to carry it out. So it should be no surprise that two-thirds of New Yorkers, by calling for the project to be moved, have given the imam a vote of no confidence.

Changing the community center's address might effectively defuse the tensions around the project. But it would mostly defeat the purpose. It's not that the bullies and bigots would win, as some Cordoba House defenders warn. It's that the globally significant statement this symbol could make would be lost. Maybe it already is. And even if it is not, maybe it's unrealistic to think a different leader could repair the trust that's been broken, or even that Rauf could separate himself from the project. But given the alternative, and all the evidence that this imam is not the man for this delicate job, I don't think the center's supporters have much of a choice. If they are going to have any hope of saving the mission, they're going to have to find a new missionary.

Dan Gerstein, a political communications consultant and commentator based in New York, is the founder and president of Gotham Ghostwriters . He formerly served as communications director to Sen. Joe Lieberman , I-Conn., and as a senior advisor on his vice presidential and presidential campaigns. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/08/ground-zero-mosque-imam-feisal-opinions-columnists-dan-gerstein_2.html

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Lesson learned: Muslims are guilty until proven innocent and are required to assure people that they are not crazy even if they have never done anything crazy before. There are endless hoops to jump thorough and every non-Muslim arm chair quarterback knows for certain what would have worked to close the divide.

I say ** 'em. Muslims who had nothing to do with 9/11, who aren't Afghani Taliban, who just want to go about their lives as they have always done owe skeptical non-Muslims nothing more because their constant demands and hectoring are a hamster wheel of endless control, dominance and guilt by association.

You keep asking and I keep telling you. An OpEd piece in Forbes today sums up my thoughts on the problem nicely.

Partial quote:

Rauf could have done wonders for his cause, and put the bigots back in their box, if he had just had the foresight (and humility) to give a comparable speech. All he had to do was stand up in front of the WTC site and make four simple affirmations that are wholly consistent with his life's work: 1) I categorically reject the killing of innocent people in the name of Islam; 2) I will never take any money from Hamas or any organization that would cause New Yorkers to doubt my abhorrence of terrorism; 3) I love America and the freedoms and opportunities it provides the people of my faith; and 4) I want to build this community center on this site because there's no better way to show the world our commitment to the core American values of tolerance and diversity.

Sadly, Rauf has done just the opposite, and given New Yorkers cause to wonder who he actually is and why he's taking this seemingly provocative step. The absolute low point, and the moment the imam lost all credibility with me, is when the New York Post asked his spokesman in mid-August whether the project's backers would rule out taking any money from Iran. This should have been a no-brainer--there's no way Cordoba House would or could ever accept money from a state sponsor of terrorism. But the spokesman lamely responded, "I can't comment on that," leading to a needlessly corrosive front-page story headlined "Iran Cash Might Fund Ground Zero Mosque." If Rauf and his team don't have the basic savvy and sensitivity to handle a softball like that, how can we expect them to win our faith in their fidelity over the long haul?

From this, you could say that Rauf failed a fundamentally New York, and in this case totally relevant, test of respect. He was asking his neighbors to come out of their comfort zone and embrace his faith and cause at their sacred space. Yet, even as he talked about Cordoba House as a way to extend a hand between faiths, he gave us nothing to hold onto in return. In particular, he made no effort, publicly or privately, to cultivate the reasonable voices within the 9/11 families, which would have been a powerful signal of his commitment to the project's mission and his ability to carry it out. So it should be no surprise that two-thirds of New Yorkers, by calling for the project to be moved, have given the imam a vote of no confidence.

Changing the community center's address might effectively defuse the tensions around the project. But it would mostly defeat the purpose. It's not that the bullies and bigots would win, as some Cordoba House defenders warn. It's that the globally significant statement this symbol could make would be lost. Maybe it already is. And even if it is not, maybe it's unrealistic to think a different leader could repair the trust that's been broken, or even that Rauf could separate himself from the project. But given the alternative, and all the evidence that this imam is not the man for this delicate job, I don't think the center's supporters have much of a choice. If they are going to have any hope of saving the mission, they're going to have to find a new missionary.

Dan Gerstein, a political communications consultant and commentator based in New York, is the founder and president of Gotham Ghostwriters . He formerly served as communications director to Sen. Joe Lieberman , I-Conn., and as a senior advisor on his vice presidential and presidential campaigns. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/08/ground-zero-mosque-imam-feisal-opinions-columnists-dan-gerstein_2.html

Edited September 9, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That certainly is how it appears. Guilty before being proved innocent and guilt by association.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is ok go ahead and put your head back in the sand and ignore the issue of sensitivity.

That is all you have done during these topics:whistle:

There is no issue of sensitivity unless you are associating and judging the actions of one group of Muslims with those of terrorists. It's the logical extension of that argument.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Lesson learned: Muslims are guilty until proven innocent and are required to assure people that they are not crazy even if they have never done anything crazy before. There are endless hoops to jump thorough and every non-Muslim arm chair quarterback knows for certain what would have worked to close the divide.

I say ** 'em. Muslims who had nothing to do with 9/11, who aren't Afghani Taliban, who just want to go about their lives as they have always done owe skeptical non-Muslims nothing more because their constant demands and hectoring are a hamster wheel of endless control, dominance and guilt by association.

Welcome to America. In an open society we can have, and disseminate different opinions. I think what you posted here is wayyyyyyyyyyyy off base for what a lot of non-Muslims and even Muslims who voice some level of opposition to the location of this mosque are thinking.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims certainly did have NOTHING to do with 9/11 just as the overwhelming majority of Americans will have nothing to do with the burning of Quoran's about to take place. Guess we shall see where Moderate Islam stands on freedom of expression and speech. Or will the idiot pastor and his idiot flock get what they want? Violent opposition...

Peace and understanding are two way streets...

There is no issue of sensitivity unless you are associating and judging the actions of one group of Muslims with those of terrorists. It's the logical extension of that argument.

No it is not the logical extension of that argument.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes it is.

This guy isn't obligated to do anything just because others demand it out of bigotry.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Yes it is.

This guy isn't obligated to do anything just because others demand it out of bigotry.

The point wasn't he was obligated, the point was an opinion on where he screwed up.

"Can I have a piece of cake please?"

"Give me the f'ing cake you f*ing dumb@ss!!"

Both sentences say the same thing, correct? But if you used the second sentence, and someone later on told it would have been better to use the first does that make you obligated to be polite? No. But guess how many pieces of cake you will get using the second sentence? Guess how many beatings perhaps as well?

There are ways to go about things, and as what I posted from the Forbes OpEd indicates, this projects leadership has made some serious blunders in the PR department.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you think Park 51 merited all the news coverage it has gotten? I don't. It's yet another case (as with the book burning story) of the media whipping people up into a tizzy.

Why should anyone give a toss about this? Did anyone give a toss before the media (knowing that bigoted people would kick up a fuss about it) made it public?

Arguing about it is a waste of time, let them get on with it.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Do you think Park 51 merited all the news coverage it has gotten? I don't. It's yet another case (as with the book burning story) of the media whipping people up into a tizzy.

Why should anyone give a toss about this? Did anyone give a toss before the media (knowing that bigoted people would kick up a fuss about it) made it public?

Arguing about it is a waste of time, let them get on with it.

Calling everyone who doesn't share your exact point of view a bigot is the larger time waster.

It appears they are getting on with it.