Cordoba House “Ground Zero Mosque”: PR & Path Forward Part-3 | Move, but for the “Right Price”
Cordoba House “Ground Zero Mosque”: PR & Path Forward Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
Before I jump into the meat of the issue, it is important to lay some groundwork. As readers know from my previous article co-authored with Mohamed Elibiary, as well as my comments on the issue, I am a firm believer in the right of the Cordoba Initiative (CI) to build at the location where they have legally purchased private property. Most Muslims feel similarly, as we can see from one of our MM polls (unscientific no doubt, but relevant). Nearly 70% voted for Cordoba House to be constructed as planned, albeit half looking for a better PR strategy.
Furthermore, I also believe that the party that is really insensitive in this issue is not the organization behind the community center, but rather the opposition, as they are essentially broad-brushing the entire Muslim population as being represented by the 911 hijackers. Otherwise, why would there be any resistance at all? If indeed, the two parties (hijackers and moderate Muslims) are essentially unique and distinct, then the fault of one cannot be blamed on the other. Just sharing the name of the religion would mean that Hitler’s Christianity tarnishes all Christians forever.
As the introspective article from Stephen Dill points out, CI unfortunately hasn’t done all that well with the PR situation, allowing islamophobes to make hay while the bad PR sunshine kept shining. In my humble opinion, I believe that the PR mess is nearly beyond salvage and it would take a miracle of sort to turn the public opinion around.
The question now is where to go from here? There really seem to be 3 choices:
1) Stay true to the course (with or without better PR)
2) Modify the Cordoba House plan to basically remove the mosque. This would be similar to what Iesa proposes in his article.
3) Move the project to a different location.
While both parties to the conflict have dug in their heels, the question that I’d like to raise with the Muslim audience and CI is “what is better for the Muslims of America?” Do we keep at it or do we consider other options?
We can all see that the situation has become so poisoned that the mosque has become a political football. It has permitted an unparalleled spewing of bigotry and hatred, masked in “911 sensitivity”. Marginal, extremist hate-mongers such as Geller of hate-site Atlas Shrugs, have achieved center-stage, and the mosque has literally become an opportunity to promote islamophobia at previously unscaleable heights. The Republican Party has thrown its weight behind the opposition, having all but given up on Muslims, partly due to prejudice in its own ranks, and partly due to immature Muslim political leadership. As the issue becomes a media circus, everyday Americans are finding themselves sharing the same stage, not only with many Republicans, but also with clear bigots and Islamophobes. This is allowing for hate-transfer at unprecedented levels. Distrust of Islam, already close to 40% in many pre-controversy polls, may well move to new highs.
Bottom-line, the situation does not bode well for an already tattered brand Islam.
Thus, it is really time to take the wind out of the Islamophobic sails, before the anti-Muslim sentiment makes inroads in the psyche of average Americans (Islamophobes will be Islamophobes, but our concern is the main street).
The question of considering options must also be firmly rooted in the age-old Islamic axiom: where the harm exceeds the benefit, look for other options. Clearly there is benefit in staying true to the project as-is. Muslims will assert their constitutional rights, and not allow for the setting of what would be a really bad precedent. On the other hand, the harm seems to be out of control, and the situation is making allies of “good” people with the haters. And in my mind, the balance has already been tipped towards harm over good.
Before I propose what some Muslims may not particularly like, I find it necessary to restate that Cordoba House has the full right to build where they are building, by all readings of the constitution of this country. I would also still support Cordoba House if they insist on staying put despite my disagreement.
Based on the harm vs. benefit paradigm, in my personal opinion (note: I am not speaking on behalf of MM), I feel that there is a better course of action, something a bit more novel, and that would be a variation of #3 above.
I propose that Cordoba Initiative consider moving its proposed community center to a different location BUT only if the following conditions (or some variation) are met. CI should consider auctioning off the property at Park 51 to one buyer who:
(i) obtains an equivalent replacement property in terms of size and future construction demands AND
(ii) this equivalent property is within 4-6 blocks of the current property AND
(iii) then swaps the equivalent property with CI for the Park #51 property AND
(iv) provides cash considerations in the range of $20-30 million to the seller (CI).
In other words, let the Islamophobes and self-proclaimed “sensitivity-police” put their money where their mouth is!
One may ask, is the increase in price fair? To which I respond, definitely more fair than the anti-CI campaign as well as the following legitimate reasons:
1) It is a private property, so the seller is free to set the price as the seller sees fit.
2) It is reasonable to assume that real estate drivers have added to the property’s intrinsic value, due to so much free publicity on the national scene! Everyone now knows where Park 51 is!
3) To compensate for the harm caused to Cordoba Initiative’s reputation, which may potentially make it difficult for the outfit to find alternative donors.
This solution offers Imam Rauf and his team the opportunity to throw the ball back into the opposition’s court, as well as an opportunity to take back the PR initiative. It offers the potential of a respectable exit, to build the same future community center within close proximity of the original location, and most importantly, a cash infusion of almost 20-30% of the funds needed for the project. Let those oppose the center help build it!
In closing, difficult situations require difficult and out of the box solutions. Some variation of the sales approach could help this political football to be thrown for a touchdown. A touchdown where both the opposition and the supporters have something to cheer for!
18 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Cordoba House “Ground Zero Mosque”: PR & Path Forward Part-2 | Messaging Failures | MuslimMatters.org
- Cordoba House “Ground Zero Mosque”: PR & Path Forward Part-1: Public Relations Analysis | MuslimMatters.org
a) we are cognizant of the fact that people are sensitive about the issue even if the sensitivity isn’t very logical,
b), we were trying to promote peace with the center anyway and obviously this isn’t causing peace but more dissent and cause of hatred,
c) we can sell the land and find land somewhere else
and d), this may really backlash badly later on…
it sounds like hikmah to move.
You bring up a good 4th point that I didn’t mention in the article. Even if this center is built, “revenge” will still lurk in the minds of the hardest of the opponents, and when you have 70% Americans on the other side, it may not be hard to find some who would resort to violence.
Btw, I’d urge everyone to vote in the new poll on the left. We are interested in the effectiveness of the arguments made over the last few days.
jazakumallahkhair
I think even if the price tag that I suggested appears high, at least CI can throw it out there. This will they will demonstrate good-will. If no one takes up the offer, CI can’t be blamed for not trying! I really think there’s potential here…
It is the month of Ramadhan, the month of giving, the month of patience, the month of mercy, the month of sharing, My proposal to CI and its owners:
Hire a top PR team and reconsider the idea of the mosque (to relocate) based solely on the premise that “Islam cares” even though we know by law we have the right to build a house of worship there, we extend our love and generosity out towards those who disagree with us.
They can propose something like “In this blessed month of mercy and sharing, due to our moral value of respecting other citizens, we would like join hands with all the major groups to broker a fair and reasonable solution that will protect the Muslim’s right to build a place of prayer and at the same time respect the legitimate sensitivities of our nation due to the tragic loss of lives of Christians, Jews and Muslims, (and others) on Sept. 11″…
I would especially pay due respect to the family members of those who lost their lives and get their input. Perhaps a Museum of “Hope” could be proposed to try to bridge the gap of misunderstanding between Islam and the West.
tamim
I like the museum of hope idea, as well as Iesa’s idea of a memorial to Muslims of 911… not enough has been done on this issue. But that is not exclusive to the move, it can be done at the new location. But funding two separate building, one for memorial/museum and one for the community center may be infeasible on many fronts.
As the anti-mosque everywhere campaign continues, there will no doubt be protests against a new location and more locations around the country, despite the claims the closeness to “hallowed ground” nonsense arguments being made now. No protests about the other masajid in the area nor the shops and night clubs nor the strip bar already there. The solution is not to keep moving at the demands of the bigoted or ignorant but to learn the lessons from this debacle and to assert our rights in a smart, pr savvy, and legal manner while building bridges.
You have to be wise when to assert your rights. To stand up and make the adhan in a crowded terminal, may be perfectly within your rights, but probably not the wisest thing to do.
I completely agree with the article – brother Amad, I don’t think you need to hold your breath quite as much – I think there are more American Muslims who would agree than disagree. …which brings me to raise a point that is a bit of an aside. I think Muslim groups (with MM spearheading the effort inshaAllah) should use this opportunity to hold the American Muslim community’s feet to the fire to bring about a cohesive leadership – so that American Muslims don’t go renegade and come up with something that forces American Muslims to pick sides. I think this article describes this thought brilliantly, where the author talks about how the people behind Park51 have been so disconnected with the wider American Muslim community.
I appreciate your confidence in MM, but this will take orgs like ISNA/ICNA/MAS to really work out something. And I agree that if some outfit doesn’t take the time to build support with major Islamic orgs, then we shouldn’t be made hostage to their decision.
wallahualam