A column (h/t, MEMRI ) in the August 16, 2010 London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat by Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, director of Al-Arabiya TV and the paper's former editor, “A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?” should mean the end of plans for a mosque near Ground Zero. Mr. Al-Rashid supports President Obama’s stand for the mosque in principle (as he supports Obama-like or even beyond-Obama-like policies with respect to the Middle East). He’s no neocon. But his practical case against building the mosque is irrefutable. It should lead well-meaning liberals to join with us dastardly conservatives (well, it would be too painful for them to join with us—they can simply act in parallel, on their own, while continuing to denounce us) in calling for the organizers to shelve the plans for a mosque at this site. Or will the organizers pull the plug even before their supporters get around to urging them to do so? 
 
 "I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime. At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district....The last thing Muslims want today is to build just a religious center out of defiance to the others, or a symbolic mosque that people visit as a museum next to a cemetery....[T]he battle against the 11 September terrorists is a Muslim battle...and this battle still is ablaze in more than 20 Muslim countries. Some Muslims will consider that building a mosque on this site immortalizes and commemorates what was done by the terrorists who committed their crime in the name of Islam. I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a worship place that tomorrow might become a place about which the terrorists and their Muslim followers boast, and which will become a shrine for Islam haters whose aim is to turn the public opinion against Islam.” 
 
 Feel free to read the whole thing here. 
 
 This will be over soon. There will be no thirteen-story mosque near Ground Zero. ||||| Last Friday, at the start of Ramadan, President Obama presided over the White House's annual iftar dinner and made some rather bland remarks about religious freedom. The context, of course, was the controversy over the proposed mosque in Lower Manhattan, which is not, as Obama insisted, about freedom of religion but about religious tolerance. And then, having once again gotten high praise for so very little, he went to bed a panicked man and reached, trembling, some hours later, for a political morning-after pill to take back some of what he had said. Whew, for a moment there he was pregnant with principle. 
 
 No more. "I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," Obama said in revising and extending and eviscerating his remarks of the previous night. He had merely been commenting on freedom of religion. Turns out he's for it. 
 
 The president muddled his message. Does he not grasp that questioning the "wisdom" of the mosque's placement is predicated on thinking that 9/11 was a Muslim crime? Does he not understand that the issue here is religious prejudice, not zoning? The answer, of course, is that he does. But unlike Henry Clay, he would rather be president than right. 
 
 The very ugly controversy over the planned Islamic center -- not at Ground Zero, mind you, and not even within eyeshot -- has managed to make fools or knaves out of some pretty smart people. Some of them have embarked on a fruitless hunt for the perfect analogy. The winner, as you might have imagined, goes to that evil cherub Newt Gingrich, formerly of Georgia but now of any meeting hall with a spotlight. He said approving the mosque "would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust museum." 
 
 Gingrich keeps trying. Earlier he had argued that since there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia, "there should be no mosque near Ground Zero." But the mosque is not Saudi Arabian; it is Islamic, a distinction not all that hard to keep in mind. The comparison to a Nazi sign at the Holocaust museum is equally specious. Every Nazi was dedicated to the persecution and/or murder of all Jews. This is not the case with Islam and the attack on the World Trade Center. That attack was conducted by a handful of fanatics, not an entire religion. 
 
 Others have joined in the false analogy contests. The most surprising is Charles Krauthammer, my longtime colleague on The Post's op-ed page. In a belabored analogy, he said that while "no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive." Yes, indeed. But all of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and declared war on the United States. It was not a rogue act, committed by 20 or so crazed samurai, but an attack by a nation. You can look that up. 
 
 Krauthammer, though, could not be stopped. He likened the mosque to a "commercial tower over Gettysburg," then to the attempt to establish a convent outside of Auschwitz and, inevitably, to "a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka." Enough said. We all have bad days. 
 
 If it is not false analogies that pollute this debate, it is false populism. The people are opposed. John Boehner, the House minority leader, says so, and so does Rep. Peter King, the Long Island Loud Mouth who is clearly running for something. They are right -- but so what? Would they have liked Lincoln to have deferred to popular sentiment in the South regarding slavery? Would they have liked Truman to have polled the Army about desegregation? Minority rights are embedded in our Constitution. It was the perceived lack of them that caused the states to seek some immediate amendments, what we now call the Bill of Rights. King, Boehner and the rest of the GOP mob are showing a fearless willingness to pander to majority prejudice. Newt has mounted a crusade against radical Islam. No Saracen will be safe. 
 
 The inclination to go from the particular to the general -- to blame a people for the acts of a few -- is what has always fueled pogroms and race riots. History shows that it is a natural tendency and it will literally run riot if not controlled. It is the solemn obligation of elected leaders to restrain such an urge -- to be moral as well as political leaders. Obama almost pulled that off, but he flinched. 
 
 Yes, he couldn't. 
 
 cohenr@washpost.com 
 
 For more Post opinions on the New York mosque, read Michael Gerson's Obama's mosque duty, Eugene Robinson's Republicans pander over 'Ground Zero mosque', Dana Milbank's Religious tolerance, then and now, Charles Krauthammer's Sacrilege at Ground Zero and the editorial Obama needs to show leadership on mosque debate. ||||| (updated below - Update II [Obama's clarification] - Update III) 
 
 This is one of the most impressive and commendable things Obama has done since being inaugurated: 
 
 President Obama delivered a strong defense on Friday night of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, using a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan to proclaim that "as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country" . . . . "I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground," the president said in remarks prepared for the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast. But, he continued: "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are" . . . . 
 
 What makes this particularly commendable is there is virtually no political gain to be had from doing it, and substantial political risk. Polls shows overwhelming opposition to the mosque nationwide (close to 70% opposed), and that's true even in New York, where an extraordinary "50% of Democrats, 74% of Republicans, and 52% of 'non-enrolled' voters, don't want to see the mosque built." The White House originally indicated it would refrain from involving itself in the dispute, and there was little pressure or controversy over that decision. There was little anger over the President's silence even among liberal critics. And given the standard attacks directed at Obama -- everything from being "soft on Terror" to being a hidden Muslim -- choosing this issue on which to take a very politically unpopular and controversial stand is commendable in the extreme. 
 
 The campaign against this mosque is one of the ugliest and most odious controversies in some time. It's based purely on appeals to base fear and bigotry. There are no reasonable arguments against it, and the precedent that would be set if its construction were prevented -- equating Islam with Terrorism, implying 9/11 guilt for Muslims generally, imposing serious restrictions on core religious liberty -- are quite serious. It was Michael Bloomberg who first stood up and eloquently condemned this anti-mosque campaign for what it is, but Obama's choice to lend his voice to a vital and noble cause is a rare demonstration of principled, politically risky leadership. It's not merely a symbolic gesture, but also an important substantive stand against something quite ugly and wrong. This is an act that deserves pure praise. 
 
 UPDATE : To anyone wanting to quibble with what was done here -- the timing, the wording, etc. -- I'll just pose this question: when is the last time a President voluntarily entered an inflammatory public controversy by taking a position opposed by 70% of the public? 
 
 UPDATE II : In the face of the controversy created by last night's remarks, Obama came out today and emphasized the very limited nature of the position he took: 
 
 President Obama said on Saturday that in defending the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque near Ground Zero he "was not commenting" on "the wisdom" of that particular project, but rather trying to uphold the broader principle that government should "treat everybody equally" regardless of religion. . . . In clarifying his remarks, Mr. Obama was apparently seeking to address criticism that he is using his presidential platform to promote a particular project that has aroused the ire of many New Yorkers. And on Saturday at least three prominent Republicans spoke out against Mr. Obama’s stance. White House officials said earlier in the day that Mr. Obama was not trying to promote the project, but rather sought more broadly to make a statement about freedom of religion and American values. "In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion," Mr. Obama said at the Coast Guard station. "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about." 
 
 It's technically true, as Darren Hutchinson points out, that Obama isn't changing what he said, as his speech last night was devoted to a defense of "the right" of the mosque to be built, and it said nothing about whether it should be built near Ground Zero. But clearly, the tone and the emphasis of his speech -- and the absence of the fine distinctions he's drawing today -- made it obvious that it would be interpreted as siding with the mosque proponents and against those opposing the mosque, and that's exactly how it was interpreted by virtually everyone. 
 
 But by insisting now that he was merely commenting on the technical "rights" of the project developers -- as a way of responding to Republican criticism that he was advocating for the project itself -- he has diminished his remarks from a courageous and inspiring act into a non sequitur, somewhat of an irrelevancy. After all, the "right" of the mosque isn't really in question and didn't need a defense. As Ben Smith correctly explains: 
 
 Obama's new remarks, literally speaking, re-open the question of which side he's on. Most of the mosque's foes recognize the legal right to build, and have asked the builders to reconsider. But the clarification is, in political terms, puzzling. The signal Obama sent with his rhetoric last night wasn't that he had chosen to make a trivial, legal point about the First Amendment. He chose to make headlines in support of the mosque project, and he won't be able to walk them back now with this sprinkling of doubt. All he'll do is frustrate some of the people who so eagerly welcomed his words yesterday as a return to form. 
 
 Indeed, with today's clarification, Obama is not really on any side of this controversy. What made Bloomberg's speech so inspiring was how unapologetic and emphatic it was in defense of the mosque itself -- not just some sort of "right" that very few people were even questioning. Even worse, the primary focus of my praise here -- that Obama was taking a politically unpopular position -- isn't even true in light of this clarification. As Nate Silver documents, the same polls which show that large majorities oppose the mosque also show that majorities affirm the "right" for it to be built. That means Obama was merely echoing what polls show is the majority view, while explicitly distancing himself today from any view that is unpopular. So even that praise of him now seems inapplicable. 
 
 On the whole, it's still preferable for Obama to say what he said rather than say nothing. The notion that Muslims enjoy the same religious freedom as everyone else and are not to blame for Terrorism are always nice to hear. But by parsing his remarks to be as inoffensive as possible, and retreating from what was the totally predictable way his speech would be understood, he has reduced his own commendable act into something which is, at best, rather pedestrian and even slightly irritating. See also: this excellent commentary on the "clarification" from the Palestinian-American journalist Ali Abunimah, quoted in the original NYT article praising Obama, on the strangeness of how these events developed. ||||| ABOUT LAST NIGHT — With criticism mounting of his support for the construction of an Islamic center two blocks from ground zero in Manhattan, President Obama on Saturday defended his decision to wade into the controversy the night before, but backed off from his previous stance. 
 
 
 
 "In this country, we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion,” Obama said when asked about his remarks at a White House dinner Friday marking the start of Ramadan. He did, however, insist that his defense of the organizers' right to build the mosque did not mean he endorsed the project. 
 
 
 
 “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” Obama continued. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about. And I think it's very important, as difficult as some of these issues are, that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about." 
 
 
 
 Read on after the jump ... 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 Families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as prominent Republicans, have criticized Obama for saying Friday that he supports building a mosque near ground zero. 
 
 
 
 On Friday night, Obama took a much sharper stance on the issue. 
 
 
 
 “Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” he said. “But let me be clear: As a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.” — CAROL E. LEE 
 
 
 
 White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton later e-mailed this statement to the pool: 
 
 
 
 "Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. 
 
 It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project." 
 
 
 
 "But it is his responsibility to stand up for the constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans." 
 
 
 
 "What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that If a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a Mosque." 
 
 
 
 "The World Trade Center site is hallowed ground, where 3000 American-Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims were the victims of a cold-blooded massacre. We are still at war with the small band of terrorists who planned and executed that attack." 
 
 
 
 "But that does not give government the right to deny law-abiding Americans of one faith the same rights you would accord anyone else."
– The proposed mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero continues to dominate pundit-land. Here's a sampling: Richard Cohen, Washington Post: Obama's backtracking was a shame. People will always blame the actions of a few on the many, as they are doing now with Islam. "It is the solemn obligation of elected leaders to restrain such an urge—to be moral as well as political leaders. Obama almost pulled that off, but he flinched." (At Politico, Roger Simon defends Obama with a tongue-in cheek criticism.) Jonah Goldberg, Los Angeles Times: The mosque was a dumb idea to begin with, and pragmatic politicians shouldn't have allowed it to advance this far. Also, Obama's speech was the "opposite of statesmanship. By elevating an already stupid idea and a poisonous debate, he forced everyone to take a side on a polarizing issue." Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, Asharq Alawsat (UK): "I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime." William Kristol, Weekly Standard: "This will be over soon," he writes, citing the above column by al-Rashid (the director of director of Al-Arabiya TV) as an irrefutable argument. "There will be no thirteen-story mosque near Ground Zero."