Getting Clear on Rep. King's Muslim Hearings

Rep. Peter King's congressional hearings Thursday on the radicalization of American Muslims reminds me of the TV commercial, "There's clear, then there's Claritin clear."

My eyes are not itchy and my nose isn't running, but my mind is foggy about the true goals and objectives of these hearings.

This is what I mean.

The Muslim in me would like to know the "Claritin clear" intent behind these hearings. Is it to demonize Islam as a faith? Is it to broad brush all Muslims in America? Is a separate line for Muslims at the airport security checkpoint a possible outcome of these hearings? Will these hearings lead to a ban on hijab? King has to remove the fog for Muslimericans (a word now becoming a phenomenon) like me.

You might argue that King has repeatedly said that these hearings are not about singling out Islam. But I am having a hard time understanding why someone like King -- who in 1985 said that "If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it" -- would conveniently ignore reports that 48 of 69 individuals who plotted against U.S. targets were arrested at an early stage of their activities largely due to the cooperation of Muslim Americans. Or the fact that Muslim Americans provided tips in 48 out of 120 terrorist cases in the United States.

But despite such cooperation by Muslims, why did 32 percent of Americans say they believe Muslims to be less loyal to the U.S., according to a 2007 Newsweek poll? And why did 52 percent of Americans say they were worried about "radicals within the U.S. Muslim community" when surveyed, again, by Newsweek in 2010?

So let's put the Muslim Americans to the "Claritin clear" test. Our job is not to simply cooperate with authorities to foil a terror plot. We, Muslimericans, are also responsible for instilling the peaceful core teachings of Islam in our children.

We must preach and practice Islam in its most pristine form, the way Islam was revealed by the Holy Quran and championed by Prophet Muhammad.

The Quran does not mention the word stoning even once, yet we see the so-called Muslim scholars defending this barbaric practice.

The Prophet expressed loyalty toward his homeland despite severe persecution, yet we see Muslims hesitating to talk about their loyalty to the United States.

The Quran offers no punishment for blasphemy, yet we hear no condemnation of these practices by American Muslims.

And the Prophet never sanctioned anyone to be killed for apostasy, yet we see the Muslim clergy mute when it comes to defending such dogmas on prime-time television.

And these flawed interpretations of Islam are penetrating the minds of Muslim-American youth via the Internet and dinner table conversations.

Let's be "Claritin clear" on this question: Is Islam a religion of love, or hate?

I say that Islam is absolutely a religion of love. It expects believers to love the Creator and love His creation. The Muslim-American scholars can support this answer by sharpening their condemnation of the above-mentioned hateful innovations within peaceful Islam.

The true aim of these hearings should be to pinpoint the root causes for why a very tiny minority of American Muslims has grown radical or violent. Such an aim is also in the interest of the American Muslim communities at large to help isolate such individuals who bring Islam in disrepute.

Last year, I saw a banner at the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, the United States' annual convention in Virginia where many non-Muslim guests were invited. It boldly stated: "Love for All, Hatred for None."

For me, a message like that is Claritin clear.

Faheem Younus is an adjunct faculty for religion/history at the Community Colleges of Baltimore County and a clinical associate professor at the University of Maryland. He can be reached at [e-mail]

This article originally appeared on AOL News

 

Comments

[Harris Zafar]

09:35 PM on 03/10/2011

Bravo Dr. Younus on a thought provoking and well written article! I hope such words can be a catalyst for productive dialogue.

[de-meme-ing]

02:59 PM on 03/10/2011

As per your your articles mention of Mr. Kings previous defence of terrorism within Ireland by the IRA, I agree wholeheartedly. I never understood how Americans could support the IRA, and still don't.

World wide we are all learning a terrible lesson regarding our support of terrorism as a means to further an agenda, or as a means to avoid one, by just lying down and taking it, pretending it doesn't exist or won't get worse.


Sticking our heads in the sand has produced what we are now experiencing. Just have a look at the southern border if anyone thinks this isn't true. Durg cartels pour over our border creating more terrorist attacks in the USA then any other group, and yet the country remains silent. The silence is politically motivated. We are going to reap big, and bad on that problem, and worse.

When will there be hearings about that? I want to know.

[Jan Allen McDaniel]

02:27 PM on 03/10/2011

King has to remove the fog for Muslimericans (a word now becoming a phenomenon) like me.
============

Excellent article, congratulations.

Your list of unIslamic teachings is a roll call of some of the objectionable parts of Sharia law. You seem to be on the same page with Zuhdi Jasser.

We should all remember that American Christianity is not the same as the European Christianity it came from, neither is American Judaism.

Is it not logical to expect a uniquely American form of Islam to be created?

I believe that is the point of all the state laws aimed at prohibiting Sharia law in America.

[BoudiccaBlanc]

05:34 PM on 03/11/2011

Jan,

I totally agree with your statement.

Islam needs a "Reformation" (of sorts) and a movement with identifiable sects that reflect the "reforming" nature of this movement. Nobody but Muslims can bring about the much needed change.