About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Conservatives continue to accuse NYC Islamic center imam of being a "secret radical"

August 17, 2010 5:56 pm ET — 30 Comments

Conservative media have continued to accuse the imam leading the initiative to build an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan of being a "secret radical," pointing to his remark that "the United States' policies were an accessory" to the 9-11 attacks. In fact, Rauf has condemned terrorism and has been widely described as "moderate," and his comments on 9-11 are not outside the mainstream.

Conservatives claim imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is not a moderate

NY Times' Douthat: Rauf may be moderate by global standards, but "American standards are different." In his August 15 New York Times column, Ross Douthat wrote that by "global standards, Rauf may be the model of a 'moderate Muslim.' But global standards and American standards are different." Douthat wrote:

Too often, American Muslim institutions have turned out to be entangled with ideas and groups that most Americans rightly consider beyond the pale. Too often, American Muslim leaders strike ambiguous notes when asked to disassociate themselves completely from illiberal causes.

By global standards, Rauf may be the model of a "moderate Muslim." But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they'll need leaders who don't describe America as "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they'll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.

WSJ's Stephens suggests Rauf is a "professional charlatan and secret radical." In his August 17 Wall Street Journal column, Bret Stephens argued that the media should "inspect" the credentials of those they label "moderate Muslims," citing in particular coverage of Anwar Al-Awlaki, who, The New York Times reported in October 2001, "is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West." It was later discovered, Stephens noted, that two suspected 9-11 hijackers reportedly frequented Awlaki's mosque, and Awlaki has been linked to suspected Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hassan, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the failed Christmas Day bomber, and Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber. Stephens then connected this argument to Rauf, writing:

Here, of course, the argument will be made that, unlike Awlaki, Mr. Rauf really is a moderate. And that might well be so -- by the standards of his native Kuwait. But a man who claims to condemn all forms of terrorism yet refuses to call Hamas a terrorist group is not a moderate by American standards, which happen to be the relevant ones when you're trying to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. Mr. Rauf still has a perfect legal right to go ahead with his scheme. But his supporters need to choose between defending him on grounds of his alleged moderation (in which case his views are relevant), or on the principle of religious liberty (in which case they're not). They can't have it both ways.

Which brings me to the fundamental problem with too many self-described moderate Muslims. A few years ago, my friend Irshad Manji made the point to me that "moderate Muslims denounce terror that's committed in the name of Islam but they deny that religion has anything to do with it." By contrast, she noted, "reform-minded Muslims denounce terror that's committed in the name of Islam and acknowledge that our religion is used to inspire it."

That's a distinction worth pondering. It's also a considerable comfort to know that there are Muslims in the U.S. like Irshad who are working, tirelessly but mainly out of view, toward the cause of reform. They could use more support and recognition. As for the professional charlatans and secret radicals who claim to be moderate, it would be well if their cheerleaders in the media could inspect their credentials a little more carefully before lavishing them with praise. Because, when it comes to heralding the arrival of the long-awaited moderates, there's nothing more embarrassing than a case of premature congratulation.

Fox's Bolling: If Rauf is "a moderate Muslim," why won't he move mosque "two or three blocks away and make everybody happy?" Discussing the controversy surrounding the cultural center and mosque on the August 16 edition of Fox Business Network's Money Rocks, host Eric Bolling asked: "This imam says he's a moderate Muslim, if I'm not mistaken. If he's a moderate Muslim, why wouldn't he propose to move this mosque two or three blocks away and make everybody happy?"

Geller falsely suggests Rauf is promoting "radically intolerant" Sharia in book. On the same edition of Money Rocks, right-wing blogger Pam Geller stated that Rauf "is an imam who advocates for tolerance and yet, in his book, he advocates for the Sharia, which is radically intolerant."

Goldberg on Rauf's 9-11 comments: "That doesn't sound very moderate to me." On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bernie Goldberg also criticized the media for describing the imam as a moderate, saying, "Big media repeatedly described the imam who's behind the mosque as a moderate -- that's their word -- repeatedly. And he is moderate compared to a lot of other Muslims, but let's be honest, that's not saying a whole bunch." Goldberg then brought up Rauf's 9-11 comments, saying, "Not long after 9-11, this moderate imam tells CBS News that the attacks on 9-11 -- America's policies were accessories to the crime -- his words. That doesn't sound very moderate to me." Goldberg concluded: "This is a moderate Muslim? What does that tell you about American Muslims?"

Rauf has repeatedly condemned terrorism, "Muslim militants," and violence committed in name of religion

Rauf: "We condemn terrorists. We recognize it exists in our faith, but we are committed to eradicate it." A May 21 New York Daily News article quoted Rauf stating: "We condemn terrorists. We recognize it exists in our faith, but we are committed to eradicate it." He also stated: "We want to rebuild this community. ... This is about moderate Muslims who intend to be and want to be part of the solution."

Slate: Rauf has "denounced church burnings in Muslim countries ... proposed to reclaim Islam from violent radicals." An August 2 Slate.com article reported that Rauf "has denounced church burnings in Muslim countries, rejected Islamic triumphalism over Christians and Jews, and proposed to reclaim Islam from violent radicals such as Osama Bin Laden."

NY Times: Rauf "condemns suicide bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion." A June 23, 2004, New York Times article reported that Rauf "condemns suicide bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion." The Times further reported that Rauf "meets regularly with Christian and Jewish leaders, not only to forge a common front but also to explain his belief that Islamic terrorists do not come from another moral universe -- that they arise from oppressive societies that he feels Washington had a hand in creating."

After 9-11, Rauf "categorically condemned suicide bombers." A June 8, 2004, Newsday article (accessed via Nexis) reported: "Rauf has done little else since the terrorist attacks that pulled him from his mahogany pulpit in the shadow of Ground Zero. At the outset, he categorically condemned suicide bombers and, in fact, any violence committed in the name of religion." The article further reported: "He also said that American policies 'were an accessory to the crime that happened' since they had armed a generation of jihadists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan," and quoted him saying, "Explaining is not justifying. ... I want people to understand the things that have fueled terrorism, because if we address them, that's how we eliminate terror."

Rauf: "I can confidently assert that I am closer to my Jewish and Christian brothers here ... than the Muslim militants carrying a narrow view." According to a September 8, 2002, Denver Post article (from Nexis), Rauf told congregants at his Manhattan mosque: "I can confidently assert that I am closer to my Jewish and Christian brothers here a [sic] than the Muslim militants carrying a narrow view."

Daily News: Rauf "has a long history of opposing radical teachings." A May 21 Daily News editorial stated that Rauf "has a long history of opposing radical teachings and reaching out across religious lines to Christians and Jews. He leads a mosque in Tribeca, several of whose members were killed in the collapse of the World Trade Center."

Rauf's 9-11 comments are not outside mainstream

Former chairman and vice chairman of 9/11 Commission: "We face a rising tide of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world -- a trend to which our own actions have contributed." In a September 9, 2007, Washington Post op-ed headlined "Are we safer today?" Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, former chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission respectively, wrote: "We face a rising tide of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world -- a trend to which our own actions have contributed. The enduring threat is not Osama bin Laden but young Muslims with no jobs and no hope, who are angry with their own governments and increasingly see the United States as an enemy of Islam."

Former vice chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council: U.S. policies and Muslim perceptions of them can lead to terrorism. In an August 24, 1998, Los Angeles Times op-ed, Graham E. Fuller, former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA, wrote:

There is no monolithic Muslim bloc, but a few deeply held attitudes among the public are quite evident. Broadly speaking, most Muslims feel helpless, weak and resentful in the face of external power at work in their region: The Middle East -- the center of world civilization for several milleniums -- is now beset with masses of poor citizens (apart from the oil states), bad social services, poor education, absence of democracy, constant abuse of human rights, widespread corruption, police states, often brutal rulers, no voice over their own fates; they are victims of truly bad governance in most states of the region.

And what do they perceive? U.S. support for almost any ruler willing to protect U.S. interests -- routinely identified in Washington as oil and Israel. They see a Washington unwilling to act evenhandedly in the Arab-Israeli peace process and infinitely tolerant of a hard-line government in Israel that denies Palestinians land, dignity and statehood. They perceive double standards that allow Israel to violate U.N. resolutions, but not Iraq; that Israeli nukes are OK, but not nukes in Muslim hands. They see routine use of U.S. unilateral military power against Muslim targets that is unparalleled elsewhere in the world. They see themselves routinely humbled by use of overwhelming Israeli military power. They see U.S. military forces in the Gulf as being there to protect ruling families and not populations -- the essence of Osama bin Laden's charge.

[...]

These perceptions obviously do not fully reflect reality, and counterarguments can be made in many cases. But perceptions matter mightily since they form the increasingly poisonous psychological backdrop against which distraught and angry Muslims end up championing those who overcome their impotence, stand up to the West and assert Muslim dignity.

Beck made similar comments to Rauf. Although Glenn Beck has attacked Rauf for his comments about 9-11, Beck himself said that while the U.S. did not "deserve 9-11," the United States was "in bed with dictators" and "that causes problems." Talking about "why do you think they hate us in the Middle East," Beck said: "When people said they hate us, well, did we deserve 9-11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoned our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems."

O'Reilly noted Rauf's comments are similar to the views of many. On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly struck down Goldberg's claims that Rauf's comments were somehow radical, noting that Rauf was "pointing to the U.S.' support of Israel and its so-called occupation of places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait -- where we have troops stationed -- which has been around. That theory has been around." O'Reilly added: "So it was couched in the -- America's foreign policy ignited this Al Qaeda phenomenon, which led to this death."

Rauf is widely viewed as "moderate"

Huffington Post: Descriptions of imam as radical "are frighteningly ... unhinged from reality." In an August 17 article noting that Rauf worked with the FBI to "provide agents with 'a clear picture' " of Islam, The Huffington Post reported that "[f]or those who actually know or have worked with the imam, the descriptions are frighteningly -- indeed, depressingly -- unhinged from reality." The article further noted that Rauf has served to "promote a more positive integration of Muslims into American society" and reported that "[h]is efforts and profile rose dramatically after the [9-11] attacks when, in need of a calm voice to explain why greater Islam was not a force bent on terrorism, he became a go-to quote for journalists on the beat." The article continued:

Along the way, he rubbed elbows with or was embraced by a host of mainstream political figures, including several in the Republican Party. John Bennett, the man who preceded Isaacson as president of the Aspen Institute, was impressed enough by the imam's message that he became a co-founder of his Cordoba Initiative, which seeks to promote cross-cultural engagement through a variety of initiatives including, most recently, the center in downtown Manhattan.

In November 2004, Feisal Abdul Rauf participated in a lengthy discussion on religion and government with, among others, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In May 2006, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright placed the imam among a host of luminaries who inspired her book, "The Mighty and the Almighty."

[...]

Albright eventually collaborated with Feisal Abdul Rauf and others on more substantive political projects. In September 2008, the two, along with a number of other foreign policy heavyweights (including Richard Armitage and Dennis Ross) signed a report claiming that the war on terror had been inadequate in actually improving U.S. security. No less a figure than Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, embraced the findings.

The article went on to note that Rauf worked with the Bush administration, being sent on speaking tours by the State Department "on multiple occasions to help promote tolerance and religious diversity in the Arab and Muslim world":

Feisal Abdul Rauf was dispatched on speaking tours by the past State Department on multiple occasions to help promote tolerance and religious diversity in the Arab and Muslim world. In 2007, he went to Morocco, the UAE, Qatar and Egypt on such missions, a State Department official confirmed to the Huffington Post.

In February 2006, meanwhile, he took part in a U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar with Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes, a close adviser to President Bush. Months later, Feisal Abdul Rauf wrote favorably about his meeting with Hughes, noting that he wanted to further the discussion with other members of the administration.

Aspen Institute CEO Isaacson: Rauf "has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam." In its article, The Huffington Post quoted Aspen Institute president and CEO Walter Isaacson saying, "Imam Feisal has participated at the Aspen Institute in Muslim-Christian-Jewish working groups looking at ways to promote greater religious tolerance. ... He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam. Some of this work was done under the auspices of his own group, the Cordoba Initiative. I liked his book, and I participated in some of the meetings in 2004 or so. This is why I find it a shame that his good work is being undermined by this inflamed dispute. He is the type of leader we should be celebrating in America, not undermining."

ADL's Foxman: Rauf "a moderate imam" who "certainly has spoken out against some of the extremism in the Islamic world." On the August 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, which opposes the planned Islamic center, stated that Rauf "wrote a book about moderation and tolerance" and that "as far as we're concerned, he is what he is: a moderate imam. He certainly has spoken out against some of the extremism in the Islamic world."

Colleagues have reportedly described Rauf "as having built a career preaching tolerance and interfaith understanding." A December 8, 2009, New York Times article stated: "Those who have worked with him say if anyone could pull off what many regard to be a delicate project, it would be Imam Feisal, whom they described as having built a career preaching tolerance and interfaith understanding." The Times quoted Rabbi Arthur Schneier, leader of New York City's Park East Synagogue, as saying, ''He subscribes to my credo: 'Live and let live.' '' The Times also reported that Joan Brown Campbell, former general secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ U.S.A., is "a supporter" of Rauf.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by eb (August 17, 2010 6:08 pm ET)
      3 1
      The conservative hysteria over all of this is radical and blatantly stupid.

      But its doing a great job of radicalizing the conservative base.

      All the war and destruction in the middle east since 9-11 was for nothing if we let this community center get built according to these defeatist conservatives.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (August 17, 2010 6:17 pm ET)
        3 7
        While you and I agree on the mosque and the surrounding hysteria, I disagree with you on it radicalizing of the conservative base. Much of the country is with the "radical conservative base" on this issue, unfortunately. Which also explains the ninnified politicians jumping on the bandwagon of supporting the relocation of this Islamic center.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by eb (August 17, 2010 6:34 pm ET)
          4 1
          Much of the country is with the "radical conservative base" on this issue, unfortunately. Which also explains the ninnified politicians jumping on the bandwagon of supporting the relocation of this Islamic center.

          Yes, the product of a lot of bad media.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (August 17, 2010 6:37 pm ET)
            3 7
            I don't blame it on the media. Do you think Harry Reid's take on the issue is because of the "bad media"?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ScienceBuff (August 17, 2010 6:42 pm ET)
              6  
              I do, at least in part. Much to his discredit.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (August 17, 2010 6:46 pm ET)
                2 4
                If the Speaker of the House formulates his opinions on the product of lot of bad media, well, I don't think so. I think it's because a politician's finger to the wind dictates their public positions and trumps principles. At least for Harry Reid.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (August 17, 2010 6:51 pm ET)
                  2 3
                  Sorry, Senate majority leader.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by ScienceBuff (August 17, 2010 6:53 pm ET)
                  2  
                  I don't think the media coverage and the opinion polls are separate factors. The way a story is covered has a huge influence on public opinion. Majority Leader Reid sees how the story is being carried, sees the way it's influencing public opinions and is putting out an position that is in line with those.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (August 17, 2010 6:55 pm ET)
                    2 5
                    Baloney. Reid does not want to take an unpopular position because November is on his heels and so is some hot new Tea Party candidate. He is scared, which in turn makes him spineless. I had little respect for him before, less now.

                    He is supposed to lead, not cower.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by ScienceBuff (August 17, 2010 7:14 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Let me get this straight. I'm blasting Reid because he's letting the angle of the media coverage on the community center affect his position. You're blasting him because he's reacting to public opinion polls. I'm pointing out that the public opinion and the media coverage are closely related. I can't see where we're that far apart. What, exactly, did I say that qualifies as "baloney?"
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by eb (August 17, 2010 7:16 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Well Obama did with his comments on this mosque issue. He acknowledge that it was up to the local government but took a principled stand and he has been nearly crucified for it. Conservatives are outraged that he even gave an opinion on the issue.

                      The atmosphere out there is not very tolerant of nuance or integrity, but rather emotion.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by eb (August 17, 2010 7:08 pm ET)
                  2 1
                  Like you said, ninnified politicians are jumping on the bandwagon. Unfortunately that bandwagon has a v-8 engine called Fox news.

                  A large part of our current media climate is not trying to educate enlightened citizens. Instead it resembles a political PR blitz of attack adds, pretending to be news
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jarossiter (August 18, 2010 8:46 am ET)
                    2  
                    You give Fox WAY too much credit. They have 2 million viewers. They're more like a 4 cylinder in a Pinto.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by grmce (August 18, 2010 10:32 am ET)
                      2  
                      FNC works as a sort of multiplier distribution point. Its influence goes far beyond its actual viewing audience.

                      The imperative of the modern news cycle puts pressure on journalists to come up with copy. Lazy journalists will look for easy controversy - this is the stock in trade of FNC and other broadcast media on the Right.

                      The old Hearst Organisation line of "you give me the pictures, I'll furnish the war" has reached new heights under uncle Rupert's regime.

                      As long as we have reporters reporting what reporters report (what used to be regarded as the ultimate low point in journalism), organisations like FNC as well as the spiteful, lying hate merchants who publish the material on which they thrive will have an influence far beyond their immediate audience.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by vwcat (August 18, 2010 12:42 pm ET)
                        2 1
                        grmce, not just rightwing media.
                        the mainstream always goes after whatever controversy they are screeching about and then, presents it to the rest of the country, mainstreams it and usually puts the rightwing angle on it.
                        It happens just about every week. And the incident of Shirley Sherrod was a classic case. But, rather then a lesson learned for the media to not take whatever garbage the rightwing is peddling at face value and never checking for truth, they ignored that and decided to do what the right did in excusing their behavior. The just point the finger and did the usual:
                        It's Obama's fault.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by grmce (August 18, 2010 1:15 pm ET)
                             
                          vwcat,

                          I agree. This is where the "lazy journalist" element comes in. The failure to report critically, usually under the coward's cloak of "objectivity", often gives a false legitimacy to the spiteful lies being propagated by these poisonous bloggers.

                          Instead of simply regurgitating this stuff, the first reaction should be to ignore them. If the matter does become of genuine public interest rather it should be reported for what it is - usually a defamatory lie - than uncritically quoted.

                          That is journalism.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (August 18, 2010 12:43 pm ET)
                        1
                      Jarossiter, On point..
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (August 17, 2010 7:03 pm ET)
              4 1
              Yes, his stance on this issue is DIRECTLY and inextricably linked to the rightwing media and the rightwing political spin that's been pushed on this issue!

              If it weren't for those distortions making it an issue that they're planning on building this community center, then Reid wouldn't feel compelled to react this way.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (August 18, 2010 10:54 am ET)
                2 1
                Then Reid is even more pathetic than I ever thought.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Disputed Zone (August 18, 2010 11:56 am ET)
                  1  
                  Yeah, if the Republicans had nominated a credible candidate to run against him, he'd be toast. He might still be.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (August 18, 2010 12:03 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    I agree. Sharon Angle is a dismal pathetic candidate. I wouldn't want to be a voter in Nevada with that choice to make.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by vwcat (August 18, 2010 12:34 pm ET)
              1
            oh, agreed, eb. The corporate press has coddled and mainstreamed the fringe right while radicalizing the moderate left.
            Keith Olbermann had this bang up interview last night and hit his own profession for this kind behavior and how the media is a failure
            Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (August 17, 2010 7:04 pm ET)
          2 1
          Cowardly Dems jumping on the bandwagon? Sounds like 2002 all over again. I really don't think it matters if the majority of the country agrees with the rads. A majority apparently also agree with the AZ immigration law. I imagine a majority also agreeded with Japanese internment during WWII or with segragation. The popularity of an issue does not make it right or wrong or determine whether it's constitutional or not.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by eb (August 17, 2010 7:40 pm ET)
            2 1
            I imagine a majority also agreeded with Japanese internment during WWII or with segragation. The popularity of an issue does not make it right or wrong or determine whether it's constitutional or not.

            It seems Fox and friends want to rile up the mob and Republicans want to ride the wave into congress. I would rather see the Dems go down on principle rather than pander to the hysteria and dogma.

            This is why having media watchdogs and critics is so important. This
            Report Abuse
            • Author by grmce (August 18, 2010 10:52 am ET)
              1  
              I recall the famous quote from Henry Clay, "I'd rather be right than be President."

              Irrespective of the smart aleck retort of "Don't worry, you won't be either", Clay's simple statement is a reminder of what integrity is all about. There are lines that should not be crossed and even from the point of view of "The Great Compromiser", compromises that should not be made.

              A great lesson from U.S. political history.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by ScienceBuff (August 17, 2010 6:41 pm ET)
      4 1
      If those who want to move into the new community center agreed to move, which conservatives will guarantee that they will find a space as suitable? Which conservatives will reimburse them if the rent at the new space is higher or the lease terms are not as good? Which conservatives will supply transportation to those neighborhood Muslims who will be much farther away from the new center? Which conservatives will reimburse the building owner who will lose a paying renter for his empty space?

      But, golly gee, the emotions of those poor conservative pundits is much more important than any of those other things, aren't they?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by stevedwight (August 18, 2010 11:39 am ET)
      3 1
      Actually, the religious leaders who unambiguously said America deserved 9/11 were Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.. I guess they express American mainstream thought, though, so not a problem.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by vwcat (August 18, 2010 12:31 pm ET)
      2 1
      last night on CNN, John Roberts was filling in for Anderson Cooper.
      He interviewed Pam Geller.
      And treated her like she was a mainstream and influential person.
      and gave her a softball interview.
      Since when is a fringe rightwing nut like Geller mainstream. Especially when moderate democrats are treated like anarchists???
      When does the double standard end. When does the softball, coddling of the fringe right end...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by grmce (August 18, 2010 1:25 pm ET)
        1 1
        vwcat,

        I saw the interview too. Not so much "softball" as "nerfball". If it had got any softer he would have ended up asking himself questions.

        The obvious questions should have asked why she was whipping up this controversy with false information calculated to upset people and create discord. When she predictably tried to weasel out with semi-pious pleas of innocence she should have been confronted with the evidence of her maliciousness and her lies - that is informing the public!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by txthinker (August 18, 2010 1:42 pm ET)
      2  
      Conservatives continue to accuse NYC Islamic center imam of being a "secret radical"
      It's such a secret that even he doesn't know about it.

      :-)
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.