Salman Rushdie Weighs in on NYC Mosque

Renowned novelist Sir Salman Rushdie, no stranger to controversy, has finally offered his thoughts on the "Ground Zero Mosque" debate. The AP reports that while Rushdie "is not a great fan of organized worship [he] believes an Islamic center and mosque should be permitted two blocks from ground zero."


Having personally been a target of the extremist version of Islam that brought down the World Trade Center nine years ago, Rushdie's opinion displays a dedication to freedom and a faith in reason that we should all share.

Likewise, the UK's Daily Mail quotes Rushdie as opposing the burning of Korans. Ever the author, he said simply: "I'm not in favour of burning books."

If I may add my own thoughts to his, the same commitment to preserving the freedoms of religion and expression that are immortalized in our Constitution protects both those who would choose to build a mosque in New York and those who would choose to burn the Koran. However, while religious tolerance should prevent anyone from burning a holy book of any sort, be it a Bible, a Torah, or a Koran, neither prejudice nor grudge should prevent worshipers from being able to build a church, a synagogue, or indeed, a mosque in the location of their choosing. Of course, if local zoning were to prevent the construction of all of these in that location and did not discriminate by religion, that would be another story. However, that's certainly not the case here. I would be astonished if you could argue why a church or synagogue should not be built in the exact location in question. And if you cannot make that case, then the root of your argument, no matter how much it tries to be sensitive to the memories of New Yorkers, is still based on discrimination.

As for Donald Trump's recent offer to buy the property from investors for 25% more than they paid, on the condition that they wouldn't build their Islamic center and mosque within five blocks of Ground Zero, while I appreciate his reported motives, the logic is nonetheless faulty. If two blocks or five blocks are both off limits, who is to say that twenty blocks or fifty blocks shouldn't be off limits as well? While we're at it, why don't we "protect" the entire island of Manhattan, or all five boroughs of New York City? Why not New York state? Or why not disallow construction of new mosques anywhere in the nation? You simply can't begin to draw lines around this issue without blurring the lines of the Constitution.

I feel compelled to share Christopher Hitchens' reaction to the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwah against Rushdie following the publication his novel, The Satanic Verses. Hitchens summarizes his initial thoughts on the matter in his recent memoirs, Hitch-22. "I felt at once that here was something that completely committed me. It was, if I can phrase it like this, a matter of everything I hated versus everything I loved. In the hate column: dictatorship, religion, stupidity, demagogy, censorship, bullying, and intimidation. In the love column: literature, irony, humor, the individual, and the defense of free expression."

As Americans, we should ask ourselves which of those traits we want to have characterize our nation and our lives. While I would personally argue for removing religion from the "hate" column, I think we should align ourselves with Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Rushdie, who though they may have been been born outside our shores, embody the values that the star spangled banner is meant to symbolize.