On last night’s episode of 60 Minutes, Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf exemplified clear communication.
Critics have criticized Rauf for being ambiguous on issues ranging from his position on terrorism and radical Islam to his willingness to disclose the controversial project’s sources of financing.
But, last night, he was anything but ambiguous.
He explained his motivation for establishing a “community center” near Ground Zero, as well as for proceeding with the project despite the opposition:
- It will serve as “a platform to strengthen the voice of the moderates.”
- “America needs it: We have to wage peace. The military campaign against the radical extremists from my faith community is a military campaign – the campaign for winning hearts and minds is an important part of that campaign. We know how to do it. We are committed to doing it. We are ready, willing, and able to serve our country and our faith tradition.”
He was quite clear about his position on the World Trade Center attacks: “We have condemned 9/11.”
And, when asked how he would respond to someone who lost a loved one to those attacks and who believes that it is wrong for him to proceed with his project, he showed empathy (“I pray for the souls of your loved lost ones”), and expressed his perceived role to be one of peace-maker on their behalf (“It is my duty as an American-Muslim to stand between you, the American non-Muslim, and the radicals who are trying to attack you”).
According to CBS’ Scott Pelley, Rauf also said that he will ask the U.S. Government to approve his sources of funding.
Nevertheless, critics are bound to say that, despite that last night Rauf might have clarified any ambiguity, they simply don’t believe his words, and still question his motivation and loyalties.
I wonder if their opinion and level of trust would be different today had Rauf spoken out as clearly and publicly earlier in the process, when questions and opposition first surfaced.
This predicament highlights the importance of delivering clear messages and avoiding misunderstanding, especially in the face of conflict. In conflict situations, parties are highly likely to ascribe negative attribution to counterparts’ actions and messages when there is even the slightest bit of ambiguity. Thus, it is paramount to avoid any vagueness.
Moreover, it is more difficult to change an opinion than to forge an opinion from the outset. Once a counterpart has become suspicious or, even worse, untrusting, they will interpret ambiguous actions and messages negatively, with each interpretation further entrenching them in their suspicion or distrust. Accordingly, not only is important to be clear and forthcoming in a conflict, but it is imperative that one do so from the outset, before the conflict escalates into a more intractable situation.
See the interview here: 60 Minutes – \”The People Behind the Mosque\”
Z93QGD788WJ4








