There were many issues raised in the Peter King hearings Thursday purportedly about "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community's Response," but few were relevant to the topic. Elsewhere I have discussed some of the problems with the premise and agenda of the hearings, so I will not repeat those concerns here. Watching the hearings today, I heard claims and allegations that "Muslim organizations" and "Muslim leaders" have not taken seriously the threat from terrorism committed in the name of Islam or the problem of al-Qaeda trying to recruit Muslim Americans to their terrorist cult. This is patently untrue.
I would have loved to have testified at the hearings to describe how an urgent desire to understand the threat and effective responses to it overwhelmed my attention when I was vice-president, then president of the Islamic Society of North America from 2001-2010. I spent hundreds of hours in meetings discussing this, not only with other Muslim leaders in the United States and internationally, but with members of the U.S. Congress, officials in the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the Department of Justice -- and most of this during the Republican administration of George W. Bush.
For someone trained as a scholar of pre-modern, classical Islam at the University of Chicago, I often felt unprepared to deal with these issues. Given my responsibility to serve the Muslim community in this time of crisis, I worked hard to get my head around the social science and intelligence discussions. I combed the library and the internet for articles about radicalization, the methods of cults, modern political theories of religious violence and terrorism like Robert Pape's Dying to Win. There seems to be an assumption by some committee members that all Muslims, by virtue of their faith, have special insight about al-Qaeda; there is no basis for this assumption. I had to turn to non-Muslim intelligence experts and historians, like Lawrence Wright who wrote The Looming Towers, to understand something about this shadowy and marginalized, but extremely dangerous terrorist cult.
If U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder loses sleep at night worrying about the next terrorist attack, I can tell him he is in good company. I have lost sleep, neglected my family (they don't call it neglect because they are generous and sweet, but I know that my husband and kids deserved a lot more of my time), put off academic research and book projects, all because of an urgent sense that I had to do something about this threat. But when I tossed and turned in my bed, I not only worried about the harm the attacks could inflict upon any of us -- including my family -- but also about how the terrorists' interpretation of Islam was being identified by many Americans with Islam itself -- another crime of the terrorists. As a mother, I was deeply worried that my children were feeling more and more stigmatized as Muslims.
So other than meeting with government officials and policy specialists, I worked individually as a scholar to write about the sources in Islamic ethics and history that refute the terrorists' message. I wrote that "American Muslims Have a Special Obligation" to address crimes and violence in the name of Islam; immediately after 9/11 and many times thereafter, I have drawn attention to the ethical responses of many American Christians and Jews to anti-Muslim rhetoric, to refute the idea that Americans are at war with Islam; in the wake of the UK terrorist attacks of 7/7, I wrote "A Call for Moral Leadership: Imagining a New Heroism", in which I argued that we have to find ways to unravel the deluded heroic narrative the terrorists spin for themselves; and in my book The Story of the Qur'an, I traced the origins of literalist and decontextualized readings of the Quran among the earliest Muslim militant extremists. I have not counted the speeches I gave to Muslim and general audiences about these topics, but there were certainly over a hundred.
I did not write this column to talk about myself, but to use myself as an example of an American Muslim leader who has spared no effort to address, in my limited capacity, the real threat of terrorists acting in the name of Islam. In addition to my individual efforts, I was able to work with other leaders at ISNA and with other American Muslim organizations, like the Muslim Public Affairs Council and Muslim Advocates to organize dozens of conferences, panels, educational forums and meetings to address these issues with the greater Muslim community. We issued fatwas and statements condemning terrorism and lately, realizing the danger of the new phenomena of internet recruiting, have developed videos and other materials to counter the terrorists' message.
My message to Peter King and to the witnesses who have been called to testify is this: why don't you ask us what we have done? But more helpful for all of us -- let's get together and see whether our efforts and yours have made any positive impact, or if there are other things we can do to be more effective in our messaging. The reality is that all of the recommendations Peter King's witness Zuhdi Jasser made today have already been done by Muslim American organizations. But despite our best efforts, we will never be experts in counter-terrorism and we need partners and support to extend our reach.
There is great emphasis in American institutions on outcomes, and I worry about that when I think about our efforts over the past decade. Would it have been more effective to put less time into refuting the terrorists' message and more time building our youth programs and services on the local levels? Would the Somali kids from Minnesota have been deterred from the extremists' message more by a stirring sermon about patriotism, or by participating in youth programs run by responsible and dynamic counselors? These are serious questions that deserve serious examination. Let's get serious.
Peter King hearing shows 'sharply polarized' attitudes toward ...
King Hearings on Muslims Show Deep Partisan Rift - NYTimes.com
Rep. Peter King: Hearings "productive," "worthwhile" - CBS News Video
The Plum Line - Pete King's Muslim hearings turned out to be ...
Rep. Peter King's hearing on American Muslims a 'very personal ...
Peter King's hearings--editorial - NYPOST.com
How Peter King's Muslim Hearings Help the Terrorists - The Daily Beast
As a woman, I know that you have undertaken an enormous task, for which you have earned my respect and admiration. Keep up the good work, despite the fact that the likes of Congressman King do not wish to hear our voices. For women like ourselves the road ahead is long and the sacrifices many, yet we will prevail in our endeavours both to help keep our country secure but also to keep ourselves sane and strong and ensure that our heritage – whether cultural or religious – is not manipulated against us by extremism and ignorance everywhere………………
Your website (isna.net) has a section called "Who we are and what we believe".
http://www.isna.net/articles/Press-Releases/ISNA-STATEMENT-OF-POSITION-Who-we-are-and-what-we-believe.aspx
Unfortunately, it does not say what you believe regarding the single most important component of he narrative of the violent extremists you claim to not support - establishing the Sharia.
Here, of all places, where you can clearly tell us Americans why we should trust you, you refrain from doing so.
Contrast the statement on your website with the words of Sheila Musaji, the editor of "The American Muslim"
********************************************************
I don’t want to see Shariah, or Biblical law, or any other religious law replace the Constitution, and I don’t want to see any kind of a theocracy in place based on any religion.
********************************************************
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/american_muslims_must_defend_the_constitution_of_the_united_states/
It is perfectly valid to wonder if some Muslims it the west want to eventually see the enforcement of Sharia law, simply because this goal is so consistency declared by Muslims all over the world, militant or no. It is this goal, and not the violence being used to pursue the goal, that is the core problem we face today.
As far as I am concerned, the introduction of any religious law in the US would require the overthrow of the US Constitution.
Do you agree?
Wonder if you will get a reply.
http://bit.ly/ezvp7U
For example, according to the mainstream of Islam, all nonMuslims are guilty. There are no innocent nonMuslims. So to claim innocents should not be killed is essentially a hollow statement. Even other sects of Islam are often viewed as kuffars, and therefore suitable targets for killing.
All the talk about justice and fighting tyranny etc, are just used as codewords to describe violent jihad, to kill all nonMuslims.
Look, Muslims, if you want to be respected, you have to do FAR FAR FAR better than this pathetic attempt.
Disgraceful.
Dr. Mattson, did you consider looking to Middle Eastern countries and their leadership for methods? If there are methods of "de-radicalizing," I presume there would be interventions as well.
Wake Up America!!
You've been had!
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/israel-did-911-all-the-prrof-in-the-world
Being in bed with terrorist and reaping their sow.
2nd attack on America to hoodwink.
This sentence doesn't support it's premise. They are not falsely fighting in the name of Islam, they are fighting in the name of what they perceive/believe to be the tenents of Islam.
What Americans know is that wherever Islam goes, sharia follows and this is evidenced all around the world. What Muslims are doing is asking those outside Islam to deny the evidence. This is typical dysfunction in families that experience addiction; denial. Denial is the enabler. Denial is always the elephant in the room.
Muslims insist that sharia won't happen in the USA, and that is true, "if" we refuse to allow it to happen. That will be an uphill battle as is evidenced all throughout Europe. Muslims vigorously advocated for sharia wherever they go, publicly and behind the scenes.
While it can be shown that Muslims in Islamic lands have decreased their support for terrorism, it was at one time, recently, and still is in some pockets, embraced. That said, sharia remains strongly embraced by the predominate Muslim populations in many, if not all, Islamic countries.
This is a legitimate concern for defenders of responsible freedom.
posted Mar 15, 2011 at 12:01:56 Reply Link
===========
Which one?
all praise is due to Allah. Sr. Mattson your efforts are not wasted. Youth is an unstable time and no one can make sure that every single Muslim young person in North America does not do something stupid. I did stupid things as a kid. My kids do much better, yet I get after them because they face much bigger obstacles than I did when I was growing up. Sister Mattson you have been a beacon to the Muslims in North America. You are a blessing from Allah. God blesses us with pious sincere good-hearted scholars and you are certainly one of them. I pray you read this and take solace that your work is not totally in vain. I am a convert and for much of my time as a Muslim, you have been the leader of my group. You did not fail in my eyes. Allah will judge us, but no one can ever question your sincerity or your intention. Those who lie and say ISNA is a terrorist organization take one look at you and your work and the lie is easily exposed. There are those who don't want a real solution to bad Muslims because it will only cause Islam to grow faster in the West than it already is. This is the King hearing, not any failing on Ingrid Mattson's part.
======
ISNA is not a terrorist organization. ISNA is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, as are Hamas and al Qaeda.
There are those who don't want a real solution to bad Muslims because it will only cause Islam to grow faster in the West than it already is.
========
What would the real solution be?
A NIGHTMARE
Is this real or decontextualised? He is known to be an authority.
"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program. — Syed Abul A’ala Maududi
". As hard as it is for them to see their follow Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon, etc... suffer the injustice of our empire adventures, they are all against terrorism!"
Rubbish. How about the Christians and Hindus in muslim countries? Muslims deny religious freedom for others and they can not demand the same from others.
I for one do not see this radical Islam that many of us are talking about! I do see that many of the claims made by these people are made up!
We all know that Al-Qeada was a CIA creation! We have seen that many Al-Qaeda operatives have been proven to be phony!
http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html
Adam Gadahn is really Adam Pearlman
Yousef al-Khattab is really Joseph Cohen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsUtvOW6SR0
Abu Qatada is a MI5 agent
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1051304.ece
etc..
The Mos.sad was caught setting up a fake al-Qaeda cell in Gaza
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2949idf_qaeda.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2550513.stm
The “Revolution Muslim” that threatened the creators of South Park is fake and run by an Israeli settler.
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/sullivan/radical-muslim-group-run-israeli-jews
The list goes on and on! What we need to fear are the people behind this fraud!
============
What a relief.
For a minute there, I thought we might have a problem.
BTW.....
"CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.” ,.........
According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%). These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion. These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company."
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/
How about them apples settler Jan?
=============
You specialize in pre-Modern Islam and literalist, decontextualized interpretations of the Koran and yet cannot recognize the results of these beliefs when al Qaeda smacks you in the face with them. Why is that?
Is it possible that your puzzlement is not entirely genuine?
My opinion is that you have reasons--that you are unwilling to share--for avoiding serious grappling with the doctrinal issues in Islam that are the source of the problem of radicalization.
That there is a civil war raging within Islam is obvious to many.
One side in this war is composed of groups like al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hizb ut Tahrir, Jamaat al Islamiya, the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot, the Islamic Society of North America. The other side is represented by organizations like Zuhdi Jasser's AIFD and Stephen Schwartz's CIP, Tarek Fatah in Canada and the martyrs to the cause of liberalizing Islam such as Mahmoud Mohammed Taha of Sudan.
Are we to believe you are unaware of the fact that Islam is deeply divided between Islamists--Muslims in favor of establishing an Islamic state everywhere Muslims live--and non-Islamist Muslims? That you are unaware that violent and non-violent Islamists share the same ideology and goals, while deeply disagreeing on tactics?
Please.
Hey, I got an idea, lets sell weapons to the cartels, then opened the borders and let them in.
Maybe we won't be so apt to turn a blind eye?
That said, extremists are the recruitable, who become the future terrorists. As in any family suffering from addiction, extremism is addiction (the Puritans in Christianity for example) there will always be those who covertly support the extremism and terrorism, pretending otherwise, because they derive a benefit. If there was no benefit, there would be no support. No support, no terrorism.
The Puritans in earlier Christianity were not just extremists, but their extremism eventually led to cruelty, terrorism, thought they would not have thought so; the extremists and terrorists never does think their behavior is bad or evil because they believe it to be God sanctioned. What supported that belief? If there is no support there is no terrorism. What and who is supporting Islamists terrorism?
Why and how is the world living in denial, and how is that enabling terrorism?