Mosque in Manhattan

The recent dispute regarding plans to build a mosque in Manhattan near “Ground Zero” demonstrates the need for mediated learning conversations that address flashpoints in society. Once such disputes are placed in front of the polarizing lenses of the media, the task of reconciliation becomes more difficult.

Nonetheless, even before media over-exposure, strong divisions were taking shape. A sampling of editorial columns and blog posts demonstrates most commentators simply hope their views prevail over the views of opponents; they do not tend to argue in favor of mediated conversations or negotiations. Such tools of civil discourse are perhaps not sufficiently well known—more publicity is needed in order for such techniques to gain broad support. Unfotunately, as it stands today, writers and commentators have more appetite for the pitched battle.

Two primary responses are creating isolated pillars of opinion. One popular response is to decry the ignorance of those who oppose the mosque or Islam in general, and label their actions bigotry. This typically comes with an expression of “solidarity” with Muslims.

An example is a letter written by General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, Michael Kinnamon (Kinnamon: Mosque at Ground Zero is a gesture of neighborliness and healing). His thesis, roughly, is that Americans who oppose the project are uninformed bigots responding to “a tiny minority [of Muslims] whose violent acts defy the teachings of Mohammed.”

In a similar dispute, Christians protested in front of a Connecticut mosque by proselytizing for their faith. The Franciscan Action Network (FAN) wrote to offer the Connecticut Muslims support in the tradition of Francis. See FAN Stands in Solidarity Against Islamophobia. The timing of the letter and the post on the FAN FB Page appears to signal FAN is addressing not only Connecticut but all cases they label Islamophobia.

FAN’s expression of solidarity arises from a well-known account in which Francis of Assisi befriended the Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil, after walking unarmed across a battlefield and entering the Muslim camp. Francis so impressed the Sultan with his devotion to Christ and with his concern for the Sultan’s salvation that he was given safe passage out of the area, however, it should be noted that Francis was first beaten severely and the Imams wanted to behead him. Today we might call it a “difficult conversation.”

In a letter to Muslim brothers and sisters in Connecticut, FAN’s director, Rev. Larry Janezic, OFM, criticizes the Christian protesters, “In particular, our right to free speech must not seek to dehumanize other persons nor misrepresent communities.” He continues, “we must counter the un-Christian example of those who want to discriminate against followers of Islam.” Echoing this theme, the FAN website sports a public comment bemoaning those who do not recognize “not all Muslims are bad.”

After reading these messages, one might assume those who protest the mosque in Manhattan (and in Connecticut) are simply ignorant, bigoted, and un-Christian. In short, bad people. Though many are Christians, apparently they are people not worth engaging in dialogue.

But is this actually the case? Is this a fair portrayal of those who raise objections? Are they merely ignorant and bigoted? Are they unable to figure out “not all Muslims are bad”? I think this is not the case. While a handful may hate without reason, most are expressing real concerns, fears, and interests that should be addressed.

One writer who opposes the mosque project offers us a window into the fears and concerns driving opposition. In her blog post Why Catholics Should Oppose the Building of a Mosque at Ground Zero, Lisa Graas expresses distrust and wariness, and gives vent to the pain of wounds lingering from the 9/11 attacks. She is not alone in expressing such feelings; I use her post as a convenient reference point.

Should we dismiss her thoughts offhand? Or should her concerns be placed on the table for discussion? In my experience, distrust does not go away by itself. The hard work of conciliation is required when one hopes to replace distrust with harmony. Rather than dismiss people who express opposition as bigots we should consider their expressions of pain and distrust to simply be markers on the path to reconciliation.

In this regard, I recall an event from two years ago. During a discussion regarding the Middle East an Israeli turned to me and said, “There can be no conversation with Palestinians. They have said they want to kill us and that ends the conversation. After such a statement, there can be no way to talk.” To his surprise, I argued that it was precisely because they stated they wanted to kill him that there should be a dialogue.

Rather than accept a hostile statement as a closed door we can view the statement as an opportunity to enter into a difficult but potentially valuable exchange. The expression of a desire to kill was a perfect opening for a pivotal response, “Help me understand why you wish to kill me.” Rather than fight back, as expected, we push past our reaction and explore feelings darkening the other person’s heart. We ask them to explain, in detail, how they came to their vengeful desire. If we sincerely want to know how they came to their position, they will tell us. Then, and only then, can we begin to address real issues and change hearts.

There are parallels in the conflict over building the mosque. When protest arises we have an opportunity to enter into conversation regarding important mutual concerns. A Muslim leader might sincerely ask, “Why do I cause you fear? Can you help me understand what I might do to put fear and distrust behind us so we might reconcile?” I am certain the responses will have greater value to Muslim leaders than letters offering solidarity. There is a critical need for understanding, and that understanding will not come from politically correct letters.

In the Connecticut situation, the protesters FAN labels as un-Christian are doing exactly as Francis did many centuries ago. They are bringing the Christian faith to Muslims. That was the intention that motivated Francis to risk his life when he crossed into Muslim territory. I wonder if the Franciscan brothers see the irony in criticizing other Christians when they follow the path Francis took. He, too, was seen as rude and, before his success, he was given a beating for his effort.

It is true that contemporary evangelists do not possess the heart of Francis. I don’t know who does. But rather than criticizing the “un-Christians” perhaps FAN could do more to heal divisions by teaching the protesters how Francis went about making sure the Sultan knew he cared deeply and was only sharing his faith. Perhaps FAN could teach how Francis moved past the emotional wound of having his Brothers martyred by Muslims. How did he experience the loss and yet care enough to make another attempt to share the gospel?

It is probably safe to assume those who protest in Connecticut and in Manhattan are testing the true intentions of the Muslims they oppose. This is a common strategy in conflict. Through their actions they may be advancing a practical question: “Do Muslims really believe in religious tolerance and freedom?”

The question of reciprocal tolerance does not come out of the blue. Recently, in Michigan, Christians handing out pamphlets near a Muslim event were arrested for causing a disturbance. Across the globe, instances of extreme and horrific punishments, including death, are exacted upon those who convert to Christianity or upon those who proselytize. Two weeks ago, Muslims murdered nine aid workers they accused of proselytizing. These questions do not arise in a vacuum but rather are lifted from the headlines.

Thus, the real issue being advanced, the actual question being asked, concerns reciprocity. Protesters are asking whether or not our concept of freedom of religion is the same as the concept of freedom of religion held by Muslims. They are performing a “reality check.” This is not uncommon when conflict arises—parties want to know where the other stands, not in terms of words, but rather in terms of actions. Does true reciprocity exist?

A Wall Street Journal editorial, The Mosque of Misunderstanding, captures the situation in a nutshell: misunderstanding. The article applauds the Manhattan Imam’s work in conceptualizing how Islam can become compatible with American democracy. The editorial also notes how some of his comments can be amplified to create concern, such as his apparent unwillingness to agree that Hamas should be labeled a terrorist organization.

The WSJ editors, correctly analyzing the problem as one of sensitivity and understanding rather than a matter of Constitutional law, note that both sides have something to gain by getting past misunderstanding and suspicion. Both sides have a great deal to gain from entering into mediated conversations that deal frankly and honestly with mutual concerns. Letters of brotherly love and support offer temporary good feelings, but they do not resolve conflict. For reconciliation we need parties willing to both speak and hear uncomfortable expressions of real concerns. We must get past surface pleasantries in order to change hearts.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of the current misunderstanding is that the Imam promoting the Manhattan mosque is a Sufi, a member of the most mystical and spiritual sect of Islam. As a Sufi it is very likely Imam Rauf has a vision of a center where joy can be nurtured, and that joy can become a healing balm to soothe the wounds of 9/11. It is not only possible but likely that bringing joy is his dream, rather than a plot to plant a victory marker at the site of historical wounds. The question at hand is whether or not he can convey that dream in a way that embraces the opposition.

Imam Rauf, along with those who oppose the mosque project, as well as those who write solidarity letters, need to engage processes of reconciliation. They need to learn to honor the feelings of the other in this increasingly interdependent world. My brief exchanges with Muslims supporting the mosque project lead me to hold out hope that they will meet their opposition in a setting where they can share concerns, heal wounds, and allay fears. It is a process that may take time.

In closing, I challenge FAN, 1) to become an active agent of reconciliation, 2) to engage in respectful and civil discourse with other Christians, and 3) to better understand other Christians, rather than fostering division within the Christian family. Perhaps it will be Muslims, in the form of the conflict over the mosque, that will motivate Christians to heal divisions within their own faith.

Related Posts

• Passions on Fire
• Saint Francis of Assisi: Mediator or Political Activist? Part 2
• Healing Wounds at Ground Zero
• Immigration Reform
• Beyond Corruption and Deception