The Cordoba Initiative – Why I will not support it

 The Cordoba Initiative 

…..is a mega project devised by a number of Muslim organizations and sponsors to create a 15-story mosque and Islamic community center two blocks from ground zero.  The official site says it is:  

“….. a Muslim-led project which will build a world-class facility that promotes tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City.  The center will be community-driven, serving as a platform for inter-community gatherings and cooperation at all levels, providing a space for all New Yorkers to enjoy.  

This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture.  Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form – compassion, generosity, and respect for all.    

The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants – all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide.”  

Needless to say, there are those apposed to it.  Survivors and families of victims of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center are certainly feeling emotions right now and not all of them good.   The political far-right have condemned it, probably because they can use its creation as a rally cry to some perceived threat and thus another opportunity to claim the patriotic mantle of America.  Be just as certain the will find it a subject to blame their villainous “Barry Hussein”.  Equally, other interest groups are using it to their full advantage.  The radical Zionist movement that has strong lobby influence in the US will find it necessary to battle the project, simply because it is in their interests to demonize anything Islamic to further their own goals to annex the Occupied Territories and some fundamentalist Christian groups – well I guess they will consider something non-Christian as being from “the Devil”.  

But what is the reality behind all of this?  It is hard to actually identify.   

Emotions from those that suffered from September 11 are running high and we know from experience that it is hard to squash.   My parents found a natural dislike for anything German because of the effects of the War, though my child-hood was in Indonesia and I loved the place (and still do), some of my friends’ parents who were fighting guerillas there still hold emotional grudges.   I can only imagine what some WTC families must be feeling.   Having said that, the world does move on and it is for the politicians and our leadership to help build bridges and foster friendship.   Just like the horrors of the two World Wars and other major conflicts, we have mostly gotten over it and thus the process must also be done for New Yorkers and their perceived enemy.   I say “perceived” because the enemy is radical Islamists and terrorism, but because that is a new phenomenon, and we have no race or nation to identify, we can argue that Islam, Muslims and Middle-Easterners have to a degree filled that gab to some.      

Ashley Michelle Papon from GlobalShift correctly writes:  

Of course, it’s difficult to defend that the sentiment isn’t inherently discriminatory against the religion of Islam. Particularly when at least one major leader of an opposing religion demanded that the main focus of the Cultural Center be the teaching not of what Islam is, but rather what it isn’t, complete with a graphic museum depicting all those who have died as a result of Islamic teachings being manipulated.  

Imagine insisting that any Christian centers built in Europe must likewise feature a museum endlessly shaming current followers of the faith for what happened during the Spanish Inquisition. Or, more pointedly, refusing to allow a Catholic church to be built anywhere near the Nazi internment camps unless they agreed to make their primary focus crafting a living apology for the role that they played in assisting in the genocide (which killed an estimated 11 million people) under Adolf Hitler’s regime.  

Many arguments against the Cordoba Initiative fall under these base emotional feelings, void of logic but needs to be recognized for what they are – fear and anger.  

But still, if we cut the emotions and look at the purpose and what is capable of the project, what do we get and what does it come down to?  

You get a large community centre that if the plans come to fruition will be an asset to the centre of New York and as long as the political polarization and partisanship diminishes it will aid in the image of Muslims in New York and America as a whole, certainly not immediately after a period it will.  

That the project appears to be going ahead and mayor Bloomberg has given his “green light” and I think it is a fair assumption that the reasons for it going ahead is that the Burroughs want the development and investments, not to be seen as discriminatory and perhaps even accepting the ideals set for the project.  

So, logically speaking, what are the negatives and concerns other than the emotive or hate-agenda ones?  

Most negative comments that are not from the families or partisan political point-scoring is to do with the project being linked to or eventually hijacked by radicals and that the project is a deliberate dominating move by foreign investors and powers.  I have seen little comments about demographics, such will the facility stand half-empty because there may be not enough “faithful” using the place.  

Imam Rauf, founder of the Cordoba Initiative

The director of the project is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who does have a strong reputation for building bridges.    

Rauf is a founder, along with his wife of ASMA, American Society for Muslim Advancement.  There appears to be no radical influences or links to Rauf, ASMA or the Cordoba Project.    We do know that Rauf’s stewardship of his local Mosque (which apparently is 12 blocks from “ground zero”) is paid either fully or in part by the Government of Malaysia but that itself is neither unusual and Malaysia is by far a non-radical nation and a close friend to the west.  

As an Imam he is a conservative theologian and not all his words come out to a level that westerners may like.  In 2004 at his mosque in New York, he said “The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.”   He also gave the strong view that until there was a shift by western nations (lead by US) to change its views and support for dictators in the Middle-East, that there would be “an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there [is] no sign of the attacks ending unless there [is] a fundamental change in the world”  

The Cordoba Initiative is also running the “Shariah Index Project” which is attempting to rate Muslim nations on how it adheres to Shariah law.  

Is symbolism a two-edged sword?  The project is supposed to be a symbol as much as a practical tool, enhancing and embracing inter-faith and west-Muslim dialogue.  That is a wonderful concept that I support, but it raises two questions for me.   

The first is that “Ground Zero” has been chosen as a symbol as well, a symbol that includes pain, emotion and it was thrust upon them.    Does it clash or does it enhance, support or work parallel with that symbol.   My point is – has that been worked out?  The public does not know this and that can only work to confuse matters more.  

The second is that as a symbol, the Cordoba Initiative is a prime target for other agendas and ideals because of its potency and placement.   It would be a fool who thinks that the radical, Islamist, anti-integrationist and foreign forces that have so well infiltrated the American Muslim community will not try and do the same to the Cordoba Initiative.   So the point here is what guarantees do we have that it will not?   The ideals set by Imam Rauf and the project is commendable and it cannot be attacked at all, but will it be the reality that is created when the doors are opened and not a few years later on?  The hijacking of the project would be a great score to radical Islamism and anti-Western ideologies, it would then become a symbol of terror and that perversely the attacks on September 11 was some form of victory.  

Will the Cordoba Initiative be a two-edged sword? A clash with a symbol forced on America or a support to it?

At present I do not support the Cordoba Initiative as the plans stand.  Why?  

I believe there has been not enough consultation, parallel symbolism correctly valued or coordinated and work to make the population of New York and America back the project.  

Additionally and in the long term more important, I see no guarantees that the infiltration of anti-Western, anti-integrationist and foreign influences will not take over the project at some point.  That would be a disaster.   I could only imagine how CAIR, who is tainted and anything other than representing Muslims in America, are licking their lips at the prospect of getting their hands on the Cordoba Initiative site.     

It would even be worth questioning if the location is a good one?   Taking away the intentional placement at the old WTC Site, the project is large enough to consider building it in another symbolic location, such as in the capital Washington DC.  

Until those questions are answered and guarantees are made, I cannot at present support it.