Film at 9/11 Museum Sets Off Clash Over Reference to Islam
Sharon Otterman ("The New York Times," April 23, 2014)
Past the towering tridents that survived the World Trade Center collapse,
adjacent to a gallery with photographs of the 19 hijackers, a brief film at
the soon-to-open National September 11 Memorial Museum will seek to explain
to visitors the historical roots of the attacks.
The film, “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” refers to the terrorists as Islamists
who viewed their mission as a jihad. The NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who
narrates the film, speaks over images of terrorist training camps and Qaeda
attacks spanning decades. Interspersed are explanations of the ideology of
the terrorists, from video clips in foreign-accented English translations.
The documentary is not even seven minutes long, the exhibit just a small
part of the museum. But it has over the last few weeks suddenly become a
flash point in what has long been one of the most highly charged issues at the
museum: how it should talk about Islam and Muslims.
With the museum opening on May 21, it has shown the film to several groups,
including an interfaith advisory group of clergy members. Those on the
panel overwhelmingly took strong exception to the film, believing some of the
terminology in it casts aspersions on all Muslims, and requested changes.
But the museum has declined. In March, the sole imam in the group resigned
to make clear that he could not endorse its contents.
“The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our
local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum,”
Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, wrote in a letter
to the museum’s director. “Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand
the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced
view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim
believers near the site.”
Museum officials are standing by the film, which they say was vetted by
several scholars of Islam and of terrorism. A museum spokesman and panel
members described the contents of the film, which was not made available to
The
New York Times for viewing.
“From the very beginning, we had a very heavy responsibility to be true to
the facts, to be objective, and in no way smear an entire religion when we
are talking about a terrorist group,” said Joseph C. Daniels, president and
chief executive of the nonprofit foundation that oversees the memorial and
museum.
But the disagreement has been ricocheting through scholarly circles in
recent weeks. At issue is whether it is inflammatory for the museum to use
terms like “Islamist” and “jihad” in conjunction with the Sept. 11 attack,
without making clear that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. The
panel has urged the use of more specific language, such as “Al Qaeda-inspired
terrorism” and doing more to explain the meaning of jihad.
The terms “Islamist” and “jihadist” are often used to describe extremist
Muslim ideologies. But the problem with using such language in a museum
designed to instruct people for generations is that most visitors are “simply
going to say Islamist means Muslims, jihadist means Muslims,” said Akbar
Ahmed, the chairman of the Islamic studies department at American University
in Washington.
“The terrorists need to be condemned and remembered for what they did,”
Dr. Ahmed said. “But when you associate their religion with what they did,
then you are automatically including, by association, one and a half billion
people who had nothing to do with these actions and who ultimately the U.S.
would not want to unnecessarily alienate.”
The question of how to represent Islam in the museum has long been fraught.
It was among the first issues that came up when the museum began asking
for advice in about 2005 from a panel of mostly Lower Manhattan clergy
members who had been involved in recovery work after the attacks.
Peter B. Gudaitis, who brought the group together as the chief executive of
New York Disaster Interfaith Services, said the museum had rejected
certain Islam-related suggestions from the panel, such as telling the story of
Mohammad Salman Hamdani, a Muslim cadet with the New York Police Department
who died in the attack and was initially suspected as a perpetrator.
There was wide agreement, however, that the exhibit space should make clear
that Muslims were not just perpetrators, but also among the attack’s
victims, mourners and recovery workers — an integral part of the fabric of
American life.
A year ago, concerns about how the film might be viewed by Muslims were
raised at a screening by a select group of Sept. 11 family members, law
enforcement officials and others. As a result, several months ago, museum
officials invited the interfaith group to view the film and tour the still
unfinished exhibits.
The panel was pleased to see photographs of mourning Muslims included in
photo montages. The museum also includes stories of Muslim victims and the
reflections of Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, the first
Muslim elected to Congress, on the effects of the attacks on America, the
museum said.
But then the group members screened the Qaeda film and grew alarmed at what
they felt was an inflammatory tone and use of the words “jihad” and “
Islamist” without, they felt, sufficient explanation.
“As soon as it was over, everyone was just like, wow, you guys have got to
be kidding me,” Mr. Gudaitis said.
He and another member of the panel, the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive
director of the Interfaith Center of New York, began to organize a response.
On
Monday, they sent the museum’s directors a formal letter on behalf of the 11
members of the interfaith group who had seen the film, asking for edits.
Their concern was heightened by the personal experience many on them have
had with anti-Muslim sentiment, including the national uproar over the
construction of a mosque and Muslim community center a few blocks from ground
zero.
The response from the museum was immediate, though accidental: Clifford
Chanin, the education director, inadvertently sent the group an email intended
solely for the museum’s senior directors, indicating he was not overly
concerned.
“I don’t see this as difficult to respond to, if any response is even
needed,” he wrote.
The museum did remove the term “Islamic terrorism” from its website
earlier this month, after another activist, Todd Fine, collected about 100
signatures of academics and scholars supporting its deletion.
In interviews, several leading scholars of Islam said that the term “
Islamic terrorist” was broadly rejected as unfairly conflating Islam and
terrorism, but the terms Islamist and jihadist can be used, in the proper
context,
to refer to Al Qaeda, preferably with additional qualifiers, like “radical,”
or “militant.”
But for Mr. Elazabawy, and many other Muslims, the words “Islamic” and “
Islamist” are equally inappropriate to apply to Al Qaeda, and the word “jihad
” refers to a positive struggle against evil, the opposite of how they
view the terrorist attacks.
“Don’t tell me this is an Islamist or an Islamic group; that means they
are part of us,” he said in an interview. “We are all of us against that.”
For his part, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Near Eastern studies at
Princeton University, defended the film, whose script he vetted.
“The critics who are going to say, ‘Let’s not talk about it as an Islamic
or Islamist movement,’ could end up not telling the story at all, or
diluting it so much that you wonder where Al Qaeda comes from,” Dr. Haykel
said.
Michael Frazier, a museum spokesman, said the film would be shown in a
gallery that also had two large interpretive panels illustrating how Al Qaeda
was portrayed as “a far fringe of Islam.” Museum officials emphasized that
Mr. Chanin and the rest of the museum took the concerns very seriously.
“What helps me sleep at night is I believe that the average visitor who
comes through this museum will in no way leave this museum with the belief
that the religion of Islam is responsible for what happened on 9/11,” said Mr.
Daniels, the president of the museum foundation. “We have gone out of the
way to tell the truth.”
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
