Fareed Zakaria's
August 6th article makes a pretty good case that allowing the cultural center/mosque represents an opportunity to make a potent statement in the ongoing effort to "prevail in the battle of ideas and to discredit radical Islam."
There are good points made throughout the article, but these two in particular caught my eye, because they capture why we really can't simply dismiss working with Islamic clergy as part of the strategy for combating Islamic fundamentalist militarism around the world:
Quote:
|
Victory in the war on terror will be won when a moderate, mainstream version of Islam—one that is compatible with modernity—fully triumphs over the world view of Osama bin Laden.
|
and
Quote:
|
[Imam Feisal Abdul] Rauf often makes his arguments using interpretations of the Quran and other texts. Now, I am not a religious person, and this method strikes me as convoluted and Jesuitical. But for the vast majority of believing Muslims, only an argument that is compatible with their faith is going to sway them.
|
I understand the appeal of thinking that we should simply say "fuck all those {insert religious faith here}" when the person saying it believes that the faith in question is defined by its fundamentalists and radicals, but as a practical matter, it simply isn't feasible to cease interacting with an entire faith and its various adherents in matters of international commerce, politics or diplomacy.
Accordingly, we really have no choice but to work through non-radical (which is a broader category than "moderate," IMO) Islamic clergy in order to reach the broader Muslim world and implore Muslims to reject radicalism.
While it might be satisfying on some level to some people to think that the non-Muslim world can simply beat the Muslim world into a corner through military action and political or economic sanction, it's pure folly to believe such is actually possible.
For those who say "it isn't about the mosque, it is about the location of the mosque," I understand where you are coming from, but the world is absolutely filled with insensitivity to one group or another. IMO, inflamed sensibilities are not a particularly solid basis for public policy, and it is far better to require people get over their hurt feelings than to decide matters of policy in deference to those hurt feelings.
I'm no fan of Fred Phelps and his troop of funeral-protesting cretins, for instance, but the courts have determined that they have a First Amendment right to be utter assholes, provided that they honor the requisite time/place/manner restrictions while being such assholes. (I know what some of you are thinking as you read that last bit, but trust me, you will not prevail in court trying to apply such time/place/manner restrictions to a place of worship itself.)
I may not like it, but I accept as a fact of life that Phelps and Friends will continue to be the sort of assholes that they are, and I will have to content myself with laughing at their inane bullshit. By the same token, many people may not like the idea of an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, but as a matter of law and public policy, I think they are going to have to either get used to the idea, or get used to waking up pissed off about it on a daily basis.