What Is at Stake in the Proposed Islamic Community Center in Lower Manhattan?
By Professor Nazeer Ahmed
CA
Daniel Pipes, whose right wing neo-con writings are widely publicized, unabashedly writes on his website (Reference: The Temple Mount's Indian Counterpart, by Daniel Pipes, Jerusalem Post, January 17, 2001): ".....It shows that the Temple Mount dispute is far from unique. Moslems have habitually asserted the supremacy of Islam through architecture, building on top of the monuments of other faiths (as in Jerusalem and Ayodhya) or appropriating them (e.g. the Ka'ba in Mecca and the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople)." The question before us is: What is at stake in the controversy surrounding a proposed Islamic community center in lower Manhattan?
History repeats itself. Events of the past project themselves onto the canvas of the present, creating new patterns. Those with insight learn from the past and use them to improve the present. Those without vision go around in circles.
There is much that is fascinating about human nature. Not only are we distinguished from the angels in that we are endowed with a free will, we are also mortal and unlike the angels, we repeat our mistakes.
It was the year 1978. I was a member of the Legislative Assembly in Bangalore. As someone who had returned from America after having lived there for years, what I said carried some weight with my colleagues. Conversely, my views were controversial with some in the religious establishment even then.
A thousand miles away from Bangalore, in the town of Ayodhya in the district of Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh, there was an ancient mosque. Built in 1527 by Mir Baqi, a general in the Mogul armies at the time of the Mogul emperor Babur, it was called the Babri Masjid. Some Hindus claimed it was built on the site of the birthplace of Rama, one of the seven divine incarnations in Hinduism. The dispute had been going on for more than a century, since 1854, and was the source of many riots and loss of precious lives over the decades.
Even as early as 1978 the dispute was simmering and the potential for mischief was obvious. Shahabuddin, a Muslim leader from the Bihar-UP belt, and others, were determined to make this a national issue. The dispute was even aired before American audiences. Presentations were made before Indian Muslim organizations in America to raise their voice in support of the preservation of the Babri Masjid. Summarily, the issue was not only nationalized but also internationalized.
Strange as it may sound, this was exactly what the rightwing Hindu organizations wanted to do. The Jana Sangh political party, which later evolved into the BJP, had done so poorly in February 1978, in the elections to the legislatures in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, that in many places their candidates had lost their deposit. For instance, in the 56 th legislative district of Karnataka, from where I was elected, I had trounced the BJP candidate by a margin of over twenty percent.
The BJP realized that the Babri Masjid issue was one that could be used to galvanize the Hindu communities on an anti-Muslim platform. The potential paybacks were obvious. The name of Rama evokes the deepest emotions among the Hindu masses. Why not ride the emotions to political power both locally and at the national level.
The Muslim leadership was gazing at the tip of its nose. They were so riveted on the Babri Masjid issue that they failed to grasp the larger issues involved. The communal divide in the subcontinent is a minefield which not even Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah were able to close. Rather, they were sucked into it and it consumed their legacies. By attempting to nationalize the mosque issue, the Muslim leadership, led by the zealots in the UP-Bihar belt, was playing directly into the long-term agenda of the right wing Hindu parties.
I was against this madness at the time. I gave several statements that the Babri Masjid issue was a local one and it should be resolved by the local Hindus and Muslims. It was not an issue for the larger Muslim community in the state of UP, certainly not a national issue or an international issue. The national media in India picked up my comments and an article to that effect appeared in the national daily, The Hindu, published later from Madras (Chennai)
But alas! These forewarnings were not heeded. There is a well-known saying in Urdu: naqqare mein toti ki awaz kawn sunta hai. The drum beats of the Babri Masjid grew louder all over India. Correspondingly, the drum beats of Ram Janma Bhumi (the birthplace of Rama) increased in decibels. The BJP unabashedly exploited the issue to its advantage. A national campaign was started to reconstruct a temple at the site of the mosque.
Religion is just under the surface in the politics of democratic India. Chariot-yathras (marches accompanied by chariots) were held all the way from the tip of the Indian peninsula in the far South to Ayodha on the banks of the river Ghaghara, a tributary of the Ganges. Emotions were stirred up to a feverish pitch.
The result was the demolition of the Babri Masjid by a frenzied Hindu mob in 1992. The Hindu nationalists had triumphed and had achieved exactly what they wanted. The Muslim leadership was aghast and had no answer either to the fury of the passions raised or the widespread riots that followed consuming thousands of innocent lives.
The right wing BJP followed up on its strategy. Riding high on anti-Muslim hysteria, they won a large representation in the parliament. By 1999 they were the largest political party in India, displacing the Indian National Congress, and were able to form a government.
So the Muslims lost the Babri Masjid and were further marginalized in the national political spectrum. The site of the demolished mosque became a de facto temple where puja is performed by the devout. The right wing Hindu nationalists installed their sympathizers in key government positions. In slow measures, the BJP made inroads even into regions where it did not even have a toehold prior to 1992. Its influence grew until today it rivals that of the Congress party and in some regions its influence far outweighs that of the more secular Congress.
How familiar does it all sound? A proposed Muslim community center in lower Manhattan at Park51 has become the magnet for right wing demagoguery in 2010. Never mind there was no church or a temple at the site. It is the site of an abandoned coat factory. The atmosphere is just right for such demagoguery. After the demise of the Soviet Union the American political right looked for a convenient peg to hang its hat on. The events of 9/11 were just what they were looking for. Extrapolations were made from the hijackers to their alleged religious affiliations and from there to the religion of Islam itself.
Since I arrived in America in 1961 I have watched how the anti-Muslim rhetoric has shifted and escalated until it has reached its present crescendo. First it was the Palestinians. During the Nasser era it expanded to the Arabs in general. After the Iranian upheaval of 1979 it was Shia Islam and in this anti-Shia demagoguery some American Muslim organizations also shamelessly participated. After the demise of the Soviet Union it was Islam itself. The right wing media have sung these songs in chorus for so long that the message has been drilled into the subconscious of a large segment of the American population. The Prophet has become a special target. Not even the Qur’an is spared. The atmosphere today is so perverse that it is incorrect to call it Islamophobia. It is outright Islam-hatred.
The proposed Center has become a lightning rod for a motley collection of anti-Muslim organizations. Until May 2010 no one had heard of the lower Manhattan project and no one cared. Then a certain anti-Muslim website whipped up the hysteria calling it the "Ground Zero Mosque". Never mind it is not a mosque but a community center with a swimming pool and it is three blocks away from the site of the World Trade Center. In New York City a block is like a universe. Neighborhoods change so rapidly that it is like crossing the border from one country to another. I should know this because I used to rent an apartment not far from there in 1968.
What was essentially a local issue was nationalized. People who have never visited New York City have come to believe that a huge mosque is being built on the site of the World Trade Center.
Politicians have jumped on this bandwagon of hate. There is nothing as effective as "hate the other group" campaign for winning elections in bad economic times. Hitler did it so successfully in the 1930s. Truth and fair play are the first casualties in a mad grab for power. There is a website maintained by one Pamela Geller and once when I visited the website it made me sick from its vitriolic demonization of Islam and Muslims. John McCain called Islam an existential threat to America during his campaign for president. In an attempt to "bugger thy predecessor" Newt Gingrich has compared the location of the proposed center to locating a German war memorial near Aushwitz. "Cordoba House," he said, "is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain - the capital of Muslim conquerors, who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world's third - largest mosque complex... every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest ". Speaker Gingrich, now Professor Gingrich, should read more about the history of Spain. The Muslims built Spain into a showcase of multiculturalism wherein Jews, Christians and Muslims worked side by side and created a civilization that was the marvel of Europe. To the Muslims Cordoba connotes civilization, pluralism, knowledge, science, wisdom and tolerance. When the Christian armies were victorious, and the last Muslim bastion of Granada fell in 1492, was it not the Christians who instituted the inquisitions against the Jews and the Muslims and expelled them from the Iberian peninsula? And did they not convert the Great Mosque of Cordoba into a cathedral? Not a single Jewish temple nor a single mosque was left untouched in Spain and the only place where the Jews could find refuge was in the (Muslim) Ottoman Empire, in North Africa and in Eastern Europe. And was it not the Christian Spaniards who obliterated the ancient Inca, Mayan and Aztec civilizations in the Americas and built their churches on the ruins of the Aztec temples? This is just the tip of the iceberg. So which history book is Mr. Gingrich reading?
President Obama made a political error in endorsing the project. He was morally right but politically incorrect. The result has been to further nationalize, indeed, internationalize the debate.
Regardless of the merits of the issue, it is likely to have an immediate negative impact on the position of Muslims in America. The right wingers will exploit the issue to the hilt. Newt Gingrich has emerged as a leading candidate for the Republican nomination for president and if he does get the nomination look for more virulent rhetoric against Islam. Rallies will be held in New York to oppose the cultural center just as the yathras were held in India to build a temple on the site of the Babri Masjid. Those who oppose the presence of masjids anywhere in America will be further emboldened. The result is likely to be a substantial increase in the number of right wing lawmakers in the upcoming November elections. Some Union personnel will oppose the construction. Ultimately, the proposed center may never be built. But the Muslim position in America will have suffered grievous injury.
There are larger issues involved here than just the proposed community center. The intent appears to be to firm up a conviction in the American mind that a mosque is somehow synonymous with terrorism. Once the principle is established that a mosque can be moved what is there to prevent them from proposing that the Al Aqsa mosque be moved? The diabolical game has been played deftly over many years, through subtle and not so subtle accusations that Islam and hence American Muslims stand implicated with the tragedy of 9/11, not the 19 accused hijackers, all of them foreigners, allegedly from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE, countries with whom we are politically in bed.
Hatred knows no limits. When it consumes its target it demands more. And the more it consumes the more it grows. Ultimately it consumes all. Saner minds in America recognize this. They now realize that a monster is being created here, a monster called hate-Islam. Some are speaking out against this bigotry. Speaker Nancy Palosy has called for an investigation into where the funding for this hate-Islam campaign is coming from.
What is the solution to this controversy at this time? Hatred is irrational. It is hard to combat hatred with rational arguments. Hatred eats up the heart. Rational arguments appeal only to the mind. They do not touch the heart. Islam is not against America. Islam loves America. The Constitution reflects sound Islamic universal principles. American Muslims work hard, like people of all other faiths, to embellish this land and to defend it against its foreign enemies.
History does not offer solutions. It only offers possibilities and alternatives. There is a risk in abject withdrawal. Where does the withdrawal line end? At the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem? An abject withdrawal will only play into the rhetoric of extremists all over the globe. On the other hand, the American body politic has been so worked up that inflexibility will harden hostility. One option is to reduce the scope of the project, retain a prayer hall but assign some space on different floors for Jewish and Christian worshippers.
And stop calling it a " Muslim Community Center". It is not and it never was. Certainly it is not a mosque. It is just another building that is part of a renovation of lower Manhattan with a small space allocated for prayer. The banner "Islamic Community Center" was a good marketing strategy to raise funds but it has backfired. Secondly, be transparent about the funds. I have always maintained that the injection of foreign money into the Islamic centers in America is a disservice both to Islam and to America. American Muslims must stand on their own feet and let a native American Islamic culture evolve and flourish. If you cannot raise the money within America, don't build it. If you can, stand pat, scale down the project and include Christian and Jewish worship space along with Islamic worship space.
Long term, the Muslim community in America must get its act together. Every civilizational challenge is a civilizational opportunity. Civilizations that renew themselves and rise up to meet their challenges endure. Those who flinch, disappear. The rise of anti-Islamic hatred is an opportunity to get the historic mission of Islam back on the tracks of moderation and universal brotherhood. The virus of extremism is not new. It has been gnawing at the Islamic civilization since the seventeenth century. The Mogul and Safavid dynasties fell, eaten up from within, by extremism. Coercive Wahhabism appeared late in the eighteenth century, further weakening the ummah. The Ottomans held on, thanks to their Tanzeemat in the nineteenth century but were overwhelmed by an aggressive onslaught from Russia, Britain and France and mortally wounded from the inside by Arab revolts.
The infusion of petro-dollars into the Islamic body politic since the Second World War has not helped one bit. There is always the risk that some mullahs are co-opted by money and in return adopt the ideologies of their donors. Islam is the moral code (the deen) of moderation. The Qur’an clearly and repeatedly asserts this universal truth: Innalha la yuhibbul Mu'tadeen (Verily, Allah does not love the extremists).
To be viable, Islam in America must have native roots. It must grow from within in the crucible of the American experience, free from the influences of far-away lands, culturally and historically light years away from America. That includes foreign money. Grandiose mansions financed from abroad are not the solution. Is it not better to pray in a hut built with local funds than to bow in a palace built with foreign money?
