- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 2
- 3
-
Sparkle (0)
This is the second of three posts attempting to separate fact from spin in the controversy over the proposal to build Park 51, an Islamic cultural center near the site of the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. My first post focused on the factual assertions surrounding both the nature of project and the grounds for debate. This post will focus on Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man at the center of the storm.
I started this post wondering: how did this man go from being considered an exemplar of moderate Islam commissioned by the Bush and Obama administrations as a good will ambassador to Muslim nations, to being painted as a stalking horse for Hamas, Iran and global jihad with a stealth plan to impose Islamic law on the United States? While I found answers to those questions, I became more interested in understanding his ideas, and their implications for engagement between Muslims and Western societies.
Still, the answers that I found to my initial question fall into three categories. First, there is the mission that Rauf has set for himself: that of being a broker between Muslim nations and the West. That's a tall order that requires sending messages that are calibrated to resonate with each side without giving the impression of pandering to one side or the other. It's especially difficult at a time when substantial numbers of people on both sides believe that the other side is bent on destroying them. In this post, I want to explore those messages, particularly as they pertain to the ways he proposes that Muslims and the West come to a shared understanding on the proper relationship between religious institutions and government.
Second, it reflects the state of the debate in Western nations over the nature of the terrorist threat. The public position taken by both the Bush and Obama administrations is that Al Qaeda and its allies preach and act out a perverted version of Islam that is as much a threat to peaceful Muslims as it is to the US. Therefore, the US can best counter this threat through military and diplomatic alliances with moderate Muslim leaders. However, there are those who argue that Islamist terror is not a perversion of Islam, but a logical outgrowth of it. These people have gained increased visibility in conservative media circles and think tanks, as well as in the right-wing blogosphere. In part they have gained traction because of the actions of a small number radicalized American Muslims, such as the trigger-man in the Fort Hood massacre and the would-be Times Square bomber. I plan to focus on that debate in a subsequent post.
Third, it reflects a media culture that, as the Project for Excellence in Journalism's "State of the News Media" reports have documented over the last several years, privileges assertion over verification and ideologically-driven echo chambers over the public square. It's a media culture in which simple narratives win over nuanced argument or complex debate, and credibility isn't necessarily based on traditional notions such as expertise and evidence. It's also a culture in which news organizations are functioning as political actors in complex and contradictory ways. As this New York Times blog post reports, a Fox News pundit who recently insinuated that Rauf was being funded by a man who financed terrorists was actually referring to Prince Alwalweed bin Talal, the second largest stockholder in News Corporation, Fox News' parent company. John Stewart skewered Fox over this contradiction to hilarious effect on the Daily Show this past week.
To be sure, there are those who are using this moment for political gain and as a ratings grab as well. However, these underlying conditions give them a megaphone they likely wouldn't have had 10 or 20 years ago. However, that too is a subject for another post.
