To the Editor September 22,2010
We corresponded before. I wrote about your reporting on Israeli rivers. In the current edition, you wrote what I find to be a superlative revelation about Israeli government rationalizing and concealing about the PLO. The article on the mosque near Ground Zero by Elliot Leven, however, has serious problems with it.
I reported about the first big anti-mosque rally in half a dozen articles, of which I still have this link: http://www.examiner.com/israel-conflict-in-new-york/wtc-anti-mosque-rally-1-issues-excitement-decorum . I know some of the speakers and activists at the rally. I continued following the issue. The issue has been miscast, as Jonathan Tobin explains in the current edition of Commentary. It is presented as a matter of bias and religous freedom, with Muslims as the victims. I found almost no bias. As I asked protestors at the rally, their objection was to the site of the mosque, not to the existence of other mosques, to which they do not protest. So it is not a matter of religious freedom or of bias, as Mr. Leven maintains.
Some of the protestors are concerned about the broader issue of Radical Islam making a war on civilization. That broader issue is missed by Elliot Leven. He is joining the liberal fellow travelers of Radical Islam and the Radicals in trying to make criticism of some Muslim actions appear bigoted, so as to stifle criticism. That is a war tactic he inadvertantly fosters. It is true that, as the issue gains notoriety, publicity seekers try to expolit it for their own agendas. That is no excuse for smearing the innocent majority. Mr. Levin raises a number of other objections. I find them quibbling or inapplicable. One example is the technical one that the mosque would not be on Ground Zero. It is near enough. He might have asked why a mosque is going up there, when the same imam has one within half a mile. The construction is to make a point, one of religious triumph. Those who know the history of Islam understand this. So the fact that sordid businesses are nearby is not relevant. The building would be more than a mosque — so what? Not a few American Muslims applauded 9/11. Most, and most abroad, felt that the U.S. deserved it. But a minority striving to gain entree to American power politics would not dance in the street over it.
The argument against opposing the mosque placed where Radical Islam bombed the U.S. — that some Muslims were killed there — not only is irrelevant. It reveals ignorance of the subject. Muslims kill more Muslims than do U.S. troops. The Radicals war against everyone not agreeing with them. When the Radicals aim at foreigners but kill some of their own people, they rationalize that the slain Muslims are martyrs sent to paradise. What most American Muslims do or believe is not the issue. The problem is that the Radicals staff most of the mosques here and run most of the Muslim organizations that the government and media consult. The real question is how we integrate American Muslims so they don’t fall into the hands of Radicals, as the Internet has done increasingly with soldiers and Muslim youths. One problem is that few Muslim organizations speak against the Radical ideology.
The argument that "some" imam might some day preach something radical at that mosque is specious. Imam Rauf has made Radical statements, refused to condemn Hamas, and been involved in Radical funding before. Apparently Mr. Levin is not aware of taqiyya, the Islamic principle of deception of non-believers in the interest of the faith. He is too dismissive. America saved the world from two totalitarian movements, Nazism and Communism. The current totalitarian movement, Radical Islam, shares their fascist, antisemitic, and imperialist "principles." In the face of a global jihad that does not appear in Mr. Leven’s perspective, what should America stand for?
Richard Shulman, New York