The Corner

Imam Rauf on CNN

In an interview last night with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf stressed that he could not move the Ground Zero mosque because it would threaten “national security.” From the CNN transcript:

RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation–

O’BRIEN: What’s the risk? When you say “national security,” what’s the risk?

RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides — you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.

To equate mosque opponents with radical Muslims seems like exactly the kind of inappropriate equivocation a moderate imam should be debunking, not perpetuating. Clearly, holding rallies (and even, despicable as it is, threatening to burn Korans) is not on the same scale as waging a suicide attack that kills 3,000 innocent people.

Throughout the interview, Rauf tried to argue that America’s dedication to freedom of religion and separation between church and state meant that it was appropriate for the mosque to be built. But although he said that he was “extremely concerned about sensitivity,” he continually returned to the argument that if the mosque wasn’t built, national security would be threatened. “If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world,” he told O’Brien.

At no point did he suggest that he, and other Muslim leaders, could explain the situation to Muslims throughout the world, let them understand that the majority of sentiment was not anti-Islam, but was motivated by a strong feeling that this it was inappropriate to have Ground Zero — a site of triumph for radical Islam — have a huge mosque nearby. Nor did he suggest that they could point out that throughout New York City, many, many mosques currently exist, without organized objection. For him, it appeared to be a black and white situation: either build the mosque and avoid extremist Islam violence, or not build the mosque and run the risk of a national security threat.

When asked about raising the $100 million, Rauf said, “We’ll get money from whatever sources we can, domestically especially, and be very transparent on how we raise the money.” He said they would list whoever gave money, and would turn down money from anyone who gave to Hamas. But when O’Brien pushed on the Hamas funding question, Rauf resorted to vague statements:

O’BRIEN: Will you turn down money from people who, say, give money to Hamas?

RAUF: Absolutely.

O’BRIEN: No question about it? Anyone who supports Hamas cannot give money to you?

RAUF: We will do whatever is absolutely correct and legal and the safe thing to do.

O’BRIEN: Which means what exactly? I mean, because that’s — that’s an extra condition.

RAUF: You see, I’m the visionary behind it. I’m not the actual builder. I’m not the financial expert. I’m not the legal expert on these things. But I have a vision here of establishing something which I know in my heart of hearts will be a powerful instrument of peace.

Of course, Rauf may not have wanted to be too adamant here: the New York Post reported a few days ago that the site’s current owner, Hisham Elzantay, has given to Hamas in the past. (Elzantay’s attorney said that he was unaware that the donations he was giving to an “orphanage” were being funneled to Hamas.)

But what is most striking is that Rauf, who stressed throughout the interview that he wanted to bring about peace via building bridges between Islam and the US, still doesn’t realize that this mosque isn’t a test of America’s tolerance. That tolerance is already there: objectors acknowledge the group has a constitutional right to build the mosque there. Instead, it’s become a test of Islam’s empathy, of whether its leaders can acknowledge that the actions of extremists from their faith have made this particular site inappropriate for a huge Islamic structure.

“If I knew this would happen, [that] this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn’t have done it,” Rauf told O’Brien. Right now, Rauf still has the opportunity to move the mosque and prevent that pain. Will he?

Katrina Trinko — Katrina Trinko is a political reporter for National Review. Trinko is also a member of USA TODAY’S Board of Contributors, and her work has been published in various media outlets ...

Most Popular

Film & TV

Why We Can’t Have Wakanda

SPOILERS AHEAD Black Panther is a really good movie that lives up to the hype in just about every way. Surely someone at Marvel Studios had an early doubt, reading the script and thinking: “Wait, we’re going to have hundreds of African warriors in brightly colored tribal garb, using ancient weapons, ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More