Nemes and Schwartz: A powerful message for all creeds

After hearing Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf speak before a packed audience last night, it is difficult to see why anyone has ever had a problem with the cleric or his organization, the Cordoba Initiative. Imam Rauf seems to represent a model of a universalistic, Americanized Islam that has gone far beyond the requirements of a tolerant, pluralistic society. Love of America was a recurring theme in Rauf’s speech, and story after story emphasized that he has always viewed much of his work through the lens of patriotic commitment. Frankly, this kind of patriotic rhetoric is too often absent from speakers at Yale programs, and its presence in Imam Rauf’s remarks underlined the utter incongruity of the opposition arrayed against him this past summer.

The vision for Islam that Imam Rauf’s articulated yesterday is likely one with which many Americans are unfamiliar. Rauf is a vocal pacifist, a moderate’s moderate, making his pillorying over the Park51 episode all the more ironic. He believes the current upheaval should not be viewed as a conflict between Western values and Muslim values, but rather as a great battle between “moderates of all faith traditions” and “extremists of all faith traditions.” At the opening of his remarks, he condemned terrorism, wherever it may occur, specifically noting his sadness over yesterday’s terror attack in Jerusalem. He suggested that there are threats to America’s national security that are distinctly Muslim in origin, but described this set of threats with visceral disgust: “I don’t like it, I hate it, I abhor it,” he said.

Of course, it would be both unfair and patronizing to herald Imam Rauf’s vision as the single “ideal model” for modern, American Islam. It is not our place to evaluate how any other person creates a coherent self-identity out of his or her religious and national commitments. Different individuals have always — and will always — need to find their own models of synthesis. As Jews in America, we are acutely aware of the struggle and reflection necessary to achieve such synthesis, and we value the rich variety of possibilities open to citizens who seriously practice a minority religion. But Imam Rauf clearly represents a model that is profoundly compatible and productive for this country and for many Muslim citizens. In this context, it is impossible not to react with considerable wonder to the reality that this man is considered controversial.

Sitting in front of a line of policemen, listening to repeated requests to retain civility, and knowing we were tasked to write a rebuttal to a negative opinion column (one which never materialized), we expected a controversy of some sort. We found none. Certainly, complex and difficult questions were raised — moderator Rabbi James Ponet pointedly asked about militant Jihad and those strands of xenophobia present in Islam (as they are in other religious textual traditions) — but Imam Rauf consistently shrugged them off. However, we never felt that the imam was avoiding these questions for political reasons; rather, it quickly became clear that these were simply not important parts of his religious vision.

Imam Rauf spoke heartbreakingly about the internal conflict he felt when he was asked by New York Governor David Paterson to move the Cordoba cultural center to a new location. The imam described the genuine pull he felt towards making a “heroic” concession to the unreasonable sensitivities of some, but also his recognition that such a concession would send a debilitating message to Muslims at home and abroad. After hearing remarks from the imam this past evening — remarks peppered with quotations from Jewish and Muslim scripture affirming the universality of moral responsibilities and abhorrence for religious coercion — we are genuinely bewildered by the fact that he was ever put into such a difficult position.

Lamentably, over the past year Rauf has been demonized in print and his speaking engagements are often accompanied by protests. But this image stands in sharp contrast to last night’s event which was utterly calm, free of hecklers or protesters. Of course, this event was in no way an anomaly, and is indeed emblematic of the strong relationship between Yale’s Muslim and Jewish communities, a relationship sadly absent on many other college campuses. Elsewhere, real dialogue is often impossible due to inflamed passions and intentional provocations. Indeed, just yesterday, an outside organization purchased a News advertisement seeking to debunk myths about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an incendiary and disrespectful manner. We thank the Slifka Center for its attempt to distance the Jewish community from this advertisement. Not often enough do we step back and appreciate the serious time and effort that the Jewish and Muslim communities at Yale invest in building relationships and constructive discourse. So even as we wonder at the controversy and vitriol surrounding Imam Rauf elsewhere, we can take heart in the radically different kind of conversation we are having here at Yale.

Hodiah Nemes is a sophomore in Saybrook College and the secretary of Jews and Muslims at Yale. Yishai Schwartz is a sophomore in Branford College and the vice president of Yale Friends of Israel.

Comments

  • Arafat
  • stiles1850

    “The imam described the genuine pull he felt towards making a ‘heroic’ concession to the unreasonable sensitivities of some, but also his recognition that such a concession would send a debilitating message to Muslims at home and abroad.”

    The “unreasonable sensitivities of some”? When you watch your friends’ civilian parents die in the worst attack on American soil, perpetrated in the name of Islam, then perhaps you can speak with any authority on unreasonable sensitivity. This column has less of a grasp on American reality than the imam’s lecture itself.

  • uncommons

    Arafat, please find some ‘facts’ that aren’t from a conservative blog.
    (Headline of wnd.com right now – “Soros Fingerprints on Libyan Bombing: Leftist Mastermind Puts Up Big Bucks to Erase Borders”)

    Again, laughable. I’m all for having different opinions, and there are always reasons to question a guy like this, but you’ve clearly turned a deaf ear towards a discourse on Islam by only listening to sources that support your side. Your other comments on the site further prove this.

    Personally, I don’t like the idea of the community center – I think it’s disrespectful even if it has the right intentions; however, I don’t try to pretend that this guy is masterminding a conspiracy against America either.

  • yale

    please stop hating on Muslims. Thanks

  • ignatz

    Well gosh, yale, there’s only one religion in the whole world whose adherents are slaughtering Christians and Jews (and other Muslims) on 5 continents. Care to guess which one it is? You can cheat by looking at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

  • Arafat

    uncommons, I apologize for comments written that cast dispersion on Muslims. I do not hate Muslims so much as hate their religion, and what their religion demands they do to all non-Muslims.

  • Arafat

    uncommons, I should have included the following links to my previous comment.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Quran-Hate.htm

  • uncommons

    Headline of therereligionofpeace.com… “islam: the Religion of Peace, and a bunch of dead bodies”… ya, that looks unbiased. Good find. Next time try CNN, Huff Post, WSJ, Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC. Any of them. Even Fox. And I can’t stand Fox. I’d be impressed if you can find it in WSJ. Pretty conservative, but respectable. There’s your challenge, Arafat.

    OK, some people don’t like Islam. I disagree, but I doubt that I can change it with a YDN comment. But here’s my problem. The Imam condemned the violent aspects of Islam, and he was clearly preaching understanding and nonviolence between faiths. So why wouldn’t you support him if he’s trying to change the religion that you don’t like?

  • Arafat

    uncommons,

    There you go again attacking the source of the information instead of the message. If you can find something specifically that you disagree with then bring it on. I’ll do my best to engage your differences with my own thinking on the disagreement.

    As to your question. It’s a good one and a fair one. My answer is two-fold.

    1) In Islam there is taqiyya and kitman which are words describing decpetion and why it is appropriate to deceive non-Muslims. I believe there is ample reason to believe Abdul Rauf is practicing this sanctioned Islamic behavior.

    (See here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm)

    2) Like Richard Dawkins, Winston Churchill, John Quincy Adams and countless others I believe Islam is an inherently evil religion and that pretending that it can change is like pretending a tiger will change its stripes. The following discussion on the topic explores this in great detail:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/spencer-shoebat-jasser-can-islam-be-reformed.html