...while some Muslims opposed it as an unnecessary provocation.
It appears that more than just the "white establishment" is against it. Why am I not surprised?
Edit: Okay, you're going to have to help me out here (later on in the Cordoba House article):
"Columnist Jonathan Rauch wrote that Abdul Rauf gave a 'mixed, muddled, muttered' message after 9/11. Nineteen days after the attacks, he told CBSâ€™s 60 Minutes that fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam, but Rauch considered his message 'muddled' because when asked if the U.S. deserved to be attacked, Rauf answered, 'I wouldnâ€™t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United Statesâ€™ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.' Rauch commented: 'Note the verb. The crime "happened"?'"
What's wrong with the term 'happened'? It's just saying that it occurred...which last I checked...is true. I mean, if one were to question that statement, I would figure they would center on the accessory part of the sentence.
Seriously, anybody? Am I missing some nuance to the word 'happened' that makes this all make sense as to why one would be noting the verb in particular? (For the record, I know too little to have any opinion of the rest of that particular section of the article.)
(Also, hey, look, I'm questioning something on the side of questioning the building of the mosque. Interesting...would you have thunk that I could do more than blindly attack its construction?)