The New York Mosque Issue

As most people know by now, an Islamic group wants to establish an Islamic Center in a building quite near the site of the 9/11 World trade Center attack. This has naturally upset a lot of the 9/11 victim’s families. It does certainly seem to reflect a certain insensitivity on the part of the Islamic community, a sort of “in your face” attitude. And in today’s overheated politics it has of course become a major political issue. But the real question is not CAN it be forbidden, but rather, SHOULD it be forbidden?

On one side opponents observe, correctly, that should Christians want to establish a church in the shadow of the Sacred Mosque in Mecca, Muslims would be outraged, and would no doubt see to it that it didn’t happen. Indeed, non-Muslims aren’t even allowed to visit Mecca.

On the other side, proponents argue, correctly, that one of the major things that distinguishes America from, for example, most Middle Eastern states, is the principle of individual freedom, including religious freedom. It may be insensitive of the Muslims to choose a spot so near the World Trade Center site, but it is nevertheless their right in America.

I’m inclined to agree with the latter group. As a practical matter, an Islamic Center near the World Trade Center side is no real danger to anyone. Indeed, Muslims were among the 9/11 victims.

There is some question about whether the Mulim group involved is moderate or not. Feisal Abdul Rauf is the imam behind the proposal, and he authored a book entitled (in the US) What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America. That sounds moderate enough, until one finds that the book was originally entitled A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11 when it was published in Malaysia. (Dawa means proselytism).

The American version of the book, with the less confrontational title, was published with the support of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). Both ISNA and IIIT have been involved in the promotion of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, which is pledged by charter to the destruction of Israel. In fact, both ISNA and IIIT were cited by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators in a crucial terrorism-financing case involving the channeling of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas through an outfit called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Such support doesn’t prove that Feisal Abdul Rauf condones terrorism, but it does make one wonder.

Still, I think President Obama was correct when he observed that in America, religious freedom allows religious groups to build wherever they like, provided they meet the zoning requirements. He may pay dearly for that in the next election, but I think he is right. Becoming as oppressive as the regimes and religions we don’t agree with doesn’t help our cause.