It does not surprise me that conflict has escalated in response to plans for building a mosque near Ground Zero. From the perspective of faith-based diplomacy, unhealed historical wounds can be expected to give rise to conflict: this is the norm, not something unexpected.
Imam Abdul Feisal Rauf expressed hopes the cultural center and mosque would be a force for peace, an effort that would bring about interfaith cooperation and reconciliation. His peace mission may be very much alive, though building may be put on hold.
It may turn out that making peace does not require a cultural center, only the announcement that one plans to build—as the announcement has created an opportunity for Imam Rauf to engage in peacemaking by reaching out with compassion to those who fear his religion.
Unfortunately, the reconciliation effort has gotten off to a rocky start as the Imam overlooked a vital step—healing historical wounds that generate opposition.
My mentor in the emerging discipline of faith-based diplomacy, the Rev. Brian Cox, executive vice president of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy and an Episcopal minister, has written about the importance of healing historical wounds. In his ground-breaking work titled Faith-Based Reconciliation, Rev. Cox advises mediators:
Those who would seek to serve as third party intermediaries in some of the world’s most intractable conflicts would be wise to integrate the healing of historical wounds into their strategic thinking.”
He continues,
Healing wounded nations in the twenty-first century is not an esoteric luxury but rather absolutely essential for peace in the world.”
What does he have in mind?
Facing the truth about history is a complex process of having an honest conversation about the past, where informed and morally courageous people determine the past hurts and injustices that must be healed.”
In the dispute regarding the mosque in Manhattan, the primary historical wound driving opposition is the 911 attack at Ground Zero. In hindsight, it is clear that those opposed to the mosque are responding as should have been anticipated: “Collective trauma in communities can induce panic, depression, exhaustion, guilt, rage, shame, protest, anxiety, denial, numbness, fear, confusion, impaired functioning, and flashbacks in the victims.”
It should have been expected that emotions related to the horrific events that took place nearby would cause protest and opposition.
Should the Imam wish to follow the premises of faith-based diplomacy, he will want to consider assembling a small group of conciliators familiar with faith-based mediation, to convene an in-depth process that explores the hurts and injustices fueling opposition. The Rev. Brian Cox has designed reconciliation seminars and reconciliation services for just this purpose.
However, the media, not known for its skill in peace and reconciliation, might argue Imam Rauf should not be considered in the same sentence with the terrorists that launched the attack. This goes without saying. However, as a representative of the Muslim community, he carries the burden of acts committed in the name of Islam—no matter how unfair this burden may seem.
Brian Cox writes, “… as a member of a community or nation, I must share in the collective responsibility for actions taken on my behalf.”
When I first read this passage, my sense of fairness was offended: there was no way I was going to accept responsibility for acts committed over which I had no power or authority.
It was only with extensive soul-searching that I realized even though I was not personally responsible for harm suffered, if I wanted peace I would have to accept corporate responsibility. That was the only way to begin the healing. I realized that though my sin might have been minor, a sin of omission—I may not have exercised what little power I possessed to prevent harmful actions—it was enough to begin a discussion.
It is true that an apology is weaker when the one who apologizes is causally distant from the harm delivered, nonetheless, any act of assuming corporate responsibility begins to heal wounds and initiate reconciliation. An apology from Imam Rauf does not possess the power of an apology from the terrorists, but it can spark a healing conversation with those opposed to his plans.
If this approach is taken, opposition to the mosque, rather than being perceived in a negative light, could be transformed into an opportunity for Imam Rauf to draw closer to those who carry the wounds of 911. While we can always view conflict through a negative lens, it is often more productive to see the opportunity it presents, and this dispute offers considerable opportunity. Perhaps Imam Rauf thought his work would begin when the cultural center was built, but Divine Providence has its own time schedule.
Ironically, those opposed to the mosque have culled through the files and found recordings of Imam Rauf speaking in unflattering terms about the role America played in bringing about 911. His words, taken at face value, seem to “blame the victim.” Taken out of context, his statements are being used to support the argument that he is not a spiritual Imam who values freedom but rather someone who traffics in anti-American rhetoric that incites attacks against America.
There is another way to understand the same words—they represent unhealed historical wounds. Like his opposition, he is giving voice to the pain of wounds that have not been addressed and healed.
One could argue that, in those statements, he failed to clearly articulate his message and failed to suggest a healing process to overcome the burden. He did not have had the concepts of faith-based diplomacy at hand. If we now see that his opposition is justified in the upset they express, based on unhealed wounds, we also see historical wounds that should be addressed to relieve the Imam’s concerns. In other words, healing gives rise to reciprocity.
The late Lewis Smedes noted in his classic Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Don’t Deserve:
There is redemptive remembering. There is a healing way to remember the wrongs of our irreversible past; a way that can bring hope for the future along with our sorrow for the past.”
It is just such a process that peacemakers can and should design and manage. Archbishop Dolan has offered to mediate. A tested design for a reconciliation service exists. Let us hope this is the direction taken.
The following excerpt from Taming the Wolf sums up the healing work in which we must engage:
The narrative myths we use to position and maintain ‘the other’ as our enemy must be dismantled; the characters in our narrative must be rewritten to fit the future we dream. Ancient heroes who destroy opponents with swift swords must give way to heroes who destroy evil with compassion. The heroic Francis who suited up to go to war is replaced by Francis the peacemaker dressed in a simple habit. Just as Francis rewrote the narrative of his life, we must rewrite the collective narratives of cultures in conflict.”
A video of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf speaking before an interfaith group.
http://www.intersectionsinternational.org/blog/2010/08/23/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-his-own-words
Greg, the problem as I see it with your article is the notion that the “narrative myths we use to position and maintain ‘the other’ as our enemy must be dismantled.”
What myths?
Rebecca, interesting thought.
What I have found is that until we come together and share our stories, until we really come to know the divine in ourselves and the divine in the other, we tend to run narratives in our minds that are inaccurate. We all fall prey to the trap of false attributions.
After we engage one another in a conciliatory process, we may still have differences, but those differences are commonly not such that we see the other as an enemy. Nor do they see us as an enemy. Transformation take places.
Typically we discover ways we can collaborate in creating a shared future. That shared future does not necessarily include a kumbaya moment but ordinarily it does include new respect for the humanity of the other, even though that humanity includes shortcomings just as we, too, suffer from deficits.
Not sure if that addresses the situation that you see as an impediment.
This is not an absolute, however, the frequency with which we are able to dismantle the myths in our current narrative and reach a new, more accurate understanding is extremely high.
I do not want to give the idea that it is all about holding hands, singing songs, and wishing all peace and love. That appeasement version of peacemaking has tainted the field, which is a shame. Rather it is hard work and at times work that causes us discomfort and stretches the limits of our world. The hard work can bring lasting and substantial benefit.
Greg,
I think the major impediment to that notion, which for the record I believe is the correct one spiritually speaking, is to believe that the “other” will even understand the notion that you have outlined. In other words, we enthusiastically, however very naively, still want to believe that the religious teaching/values of the “other” are the same as our own and that this spiritual effort to understand one another can eventually and in a widespread way, come about. It can not if the the teachings are so radically different.
The reality is, that Islam is not Christianity and Christianity is not Islam. They do not teach the same things. That does not mean that there is nothing that is similar, but the foundational teaching is not the same, as much as we could like to believe that it is. “Forgive your ennemies” is in truth a very foreign notion to the vast majority of the Islamic world.
The only cases I have ever seen where these two “other”s come together is where the Islamic “other” has either rejected the faith altogether or practices, for lack of a better word, a watered doen version of it, is more secularised or comes from a region that is heavily influenced by the “other”, whoever that is.
So, what does this mean for this or any American mosque? It means that until there is a true American Muslim reformation that rules to roost and identifies more as American Muslims rather than Middle Eastern Muslims, it will be a very tough road ahead.
Rebecca, I appreciate your thoughtful questions re the validity and viability of the approach I have outlined. In most instances, mediated learning or healing conversations are not even warranted unless such difficult factors are in play.
Unfortunately, the discipline of peacemaking has gained a reputation as Kumbaya hand-holding exercise rather than a robust approach to resolving real conflict.
In such models, based on appeasement, the more aggressive or deceptive party holds an advantage—which is good reason for skepticism, if that is the approach suggested. I am proposing something quite different.
A few additional thoughts in response:
Conflict resolution is designed to tackle situations in which two parties differ, often significantly.
Two faiths need not be identical, or even similar, for parties to resolve specific issues or interests.
The creative challenge involves identifying differences and common ground, then discovering creative ways of maximizing satisfaction of respective needs. Problem solving plays a major role.
In the mediated process there is an opportunity for parties to ask and answer (tough) questions. There is a move away from stances and positions and a move into discovery and inquiry. This is the heart of the approach.
Unfortunately, in very public conflicts parties assume positions and then, from those stances, issue position statements—lacking in depth and lacking potential for dialogue.
In a mediated process we share matters of the heart. This is a critical difference. It takes time to get there, but it does work.
In mediation we evaluate three areas of satisfaction:
—Process (was the approach fair and just); —Substance (did the outcome satisfy interests);
—Psychology (was there respect for identity and feelings).
One can enter the mediation with an emphasis on any of the three legs of the triangle. They tend to reinforce one another.
Below, I posted a link to an editorial written by a reformist Muslim, who I believe is consistent with the type of person you feel is prepared to enter into this type of process.
In his editorial Irshad Manji proposes questions that express concern and that allow parties to seek common ground, however limited.
Your comment points out a vital question: How does one nurture events that empower reform minded Muslims so they take a more significant role in the dialogue?
This particular instance provides an opportunity for a “learning conversation” event at which reform minded Muslims gather with opponents to the mosque.
Such an event may build bridges that allow us to create an agenda for future action. ( Irshad Manji, in his opinion piece, expresses an understanding of the sensitivity of those opposed to the building. This should be seen as a huge move toward dialogue. Someone should embrace him for this positive move.)
One way to change the nature of the dialogue is to do just that — change the nature of the dialogue. Those in opposition to the mosque should meet with reform minded Muslims and begin a dialogue. This example could become a model for the future. It could become the norm and serve to undercut extremism by taking the dialogue away from those who wish to foment conflict.
Can mediation and reconciliation processes work between the Islamic community and other faiths? Yes, the evidence exists that this is possible. In numerous places on this site, in videos and posts, I have referenced faith-based diplomacy run by the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy.
A couple years ago, I told the Rev. Brian Cox of ICRD (and also a professor of mine) that while the international scene had need of faith-based insights, the future would see a huge need here within the U.S. That day has arrived.
An opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal, “A Muslim Reformer on the Mosque,” parallels the suggestions made in my blog post. There are questions to be asked and answered, and thus dialogue that can take place as part of a healing process. Excellent article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575451433090488678.html?KEYWORDS=A+Muslim+Reformer+on+the+Mosque
Rebecca,
I am a friend of Greg Stone, it is a wonderful article he has shared with me that I will be posting at http://groundzeromosque.blogspot.com/
I was taken back with your comment that the concept of “Forgive your ennemies” is christian and is alien to Muslims. Indeed, the Quraan and the prophet have repeated this – The one whom God loves most is the one who forgives and the one God likes the least is the arrogant one.
As student and a teacher of Pluralism on a daily basis, I found all religions carry the similar basics and the same bottom line- though the rituals vary.
I hope you would see the value in my comment.
Thanks
Mike Ghouse
http://www.MikeGhouse.net
Good article that clarifies some of the issues in play.
http://factcheck.org/2010/08/questions-about-the-ground-zero-mosque/
A link to valuable articles on the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy.
See the September 3rd monthly update regarding new book on re framing jihad.
http://www.icrd.org/
Another point of view. See embedded video of Newt Gingrinch explaining his position. As noted previously, I believe Archbishop Dolan could mediate between figures such as Imam Rauf and Newt Gingrinch to arrive at a better understanding.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/09/03/national-catholic-reporter-attacks-newt-gingrich-for-spreading-hysteria/
A very difficult film to watch. If we are to have true mediation and reconciliation it will be necessary to address these situations. It is not possible to simply dismiss people’s fears and concerns in order to bring about reconciliation — rather we must seek creative, realistic solution that deal with the problem of extremism.
http://www.blip.tv/file/1382254