It is a nightmare for an entire religious tradition to be put on the stand as a collective for the actions of an extreme few. It is worse still when the extreme few are such a miniscule fraction of the population.
In spite of mounting evidence that Muslim Americans are excelling at collaboration with American law enforcement and widely condemning terrorism, United States Congressman Peter King, a Republican from New York who chairs the House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, seeks to hold hearings about why Muslim Americans are undergoing supposed "radicalization."
If they move forward, as King has repeatedly stated they will, these hearings will allow political grandstanding to become a precedent for fighting terrorism. Internationally, they may create tension in strategic diplomatic relationships between the United States and majority-Muslim countries and lend credence to the heretofore-inaccurate voices that claim the American government is Islamophobic. Even more troublingly, these hearings may spawn the very sort of suspicion between individual Muslim-Americans and government officials that they nominally seek to investigate. In short, the hearings are ill-advised, morally debasing and damaging to the United States, both domestically and overseas.
In an interview with Fox News last December, King explained why he is so committed to holding the hearings: "We have to break through this politically correct nonsense which keeps us from debating and discussing what I think is one of the most vitally important issues in this country. We are under siege by Muslim terrorists and yet there are Muslim leaders in this country who do not cooperate with law enforcement."
There are always exceptions to a rule, but King misidentifies the rule itself. To name just the first Muslim leaders who come to mind (and who I am fortunate to call colleagues) Imam Khalid Latif, a chaplain at New York University, is himself a uniformed member of the New York Police Department; Imam Yahya Hendi, a chaplain at Georgetown University, was honored by the FBI for his leadership in enhancing relations with law enforcement officials; and Imam Abdullah Antepli, chaplain and adjunct faculty member at Duke University, has become so widely respected for his work with governmental leaders that he was asked to deliver an opening prayer at the U.S. House of Representatives last march. Yet these imams are but three of the numerous Muslim leaders who collaborate actively with law enforcement and publicly and privately condemn terrorism.
New statistics released this month by the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security further contravene King's claims. Take the most obvious example from the study: "Eleven Muslim Americans have successfully executed terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11, killing 33 people. This is about 3 deaths per year." By contrast, "There have been approximately 150,000 murders in the United States since 9/11." Terrorism is heinous and must be stopped. But it is important to also be aware of its relative infrequency.
Furthermore, the study notes that "Tips from the Muslim American community provided the source of information that led to a terrorist plot being thwarted in 48 of 120 cases involving Muslim Americans." Based on these nationwide statistics, rather than King's rhetoric, the apt question is how to expand upon the already successful collaboration between Muslim Americans and law enforcement officials.
Even if King's claims had merit, public congressional hearings would be the wrong strategy for fighting terrorism. In fact, hey would unfairly single out the Muslim American community and potentially alienate those who would otherwise come forward.
The hearings must be stopped before they subject Muslim Americans to potential humiliation and undermine their extant collaboration with American law enforcement officials. Religious Freedom USA recently launched a campaign to prevent the hearings, and a coalition of more than 50 non-profit organizations reached out to congressional leaders in hopes of preempting them. But more political pressure is needed in order to prevent these misguided hearings.
Unless the hearings are canceled, they may do lasting harm not only to the image of Muslim Americans but of King's own high office.
Republished with permission from the Common Ground News Service.
Follow Joshua Stanton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dialogueeditor
I am an american muslim and people like you do more to induce radicalization especially in our young than all the text we could possibly find to read.
=================
Talab, I am not your enemy unless you agree with the violent and non-violent Islamists who propose that America would be better off ruled by Sharia law, now or at any time in the future.
If you are one of those American Muslims, I am your ideological enemy and I will oppose your efforts by every legal means. To be clear, Islamists have every legal right to propose whatever they want short of violent overthrow of the government. In return, I have the right to oppose those propositions by word and deed.
If my principled opposition to Islamism as a political movement causes any Muslim to become a violent Islamist, I take no responsibility for that choice. If you or any other Muslim, American or otherwise, choose to see my opposition as cause to radicalize, the consequences will be on you, not me.
If you are not a proponent of political Islam, you should realize that they are our enemy--yours and mine. Many American Muslims, like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, have figured that out:
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/
Why don't you join them and resist Islamism?
If there is another ideological group behaving the same way, it should be investigated also."
Look familiar?
The IRA's primary contribution to international terrorist know-how, the car and truck bombs now commonplace in Iraq, were devised and first deployed by the IRA in Belfast in 1972. The organization also developed homemade explosives, like the fertilizer-based device that destroyed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma in 1995".
http://www.nysun.com/national/rep-king-and-the-ira-the-end-of-an-extraordinary/15853/
===
But that is the entire point; if there is a lack of cooperation, then law enforcement cannot do its job.
Remaining silent (asserting one's 5th Amendment Rights) is NOT Obstruction of Justice.
And many in the community may not be AWARE of members planning acts of terrorism or violence.
This smacks of McCarthyism and political witchhunts to score political points.
And since when does one have to be an elected official to speak about a politicians' record?
I wasn't aware that the First Amendment was restricted to members of Congress.
"In the 1980s, King frequently traveled to Northern Ireland to meet with IRA members. In 1982, speaking at a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, King said: “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.”
and offered a defiant defense of the IRA: 'As we march up the avenue and share all the joy,' he declared, 'let us never forget the men and women who are suffering and, most of all, the men and women who are fighting.'
"He called the IRA "the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland." A Northern Irish judge ordered King ejected from the former's courtroom, describing him as “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”.
"King called himself "the Ollie North of Ireland.He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA activities and providing them with weapons. He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA activity in the U.k."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King
If you have a better source, then by all means produce it -- and refute the points made in the post above.
If not, then the best course is to remain silent.
Remember, the biggest opponent to democracy in the Middle East has been the United States.
In 1953, WE overthrew a DEMOCRATIC regime in Iran, and installed the Shah as ABSOLUTE dictator. We even trained his secret police, the despised SAVAK.
For YEARS, when he was "our man" we kept Saddam Hussein in power -- The CIA would tip him off to possible coup attempts, we armed him with WMDs, and encouraged him to invade Iran.
We have helped sustain the House of Saud in power in Saudi Arabia, and supported dictators in Egypt and many other Arab nations, and helped to suppress movements which desired democracy.
We had a policy of supporting "stable regimes" who committed horrific human rights abuses, over democracy.
THAT is the historical record. We have sown the wind and may now reap a whirlwind.
Our problem is that we have forgotten the ideals on which this country was founded -- and not implemented them in our foreign policy.
Imagine if somebody said Judiasm is a totalitarian ideology masquerading as a religion.
Islamophobes, and those who think Obama should have helped Mubarak stay in power will be all for this rerun of McCarthy's hearings.
Anybody who either knows Muslims, hates fascism, or thinks that America should stick by the values it professes will oppose it.
And the large mass of people who 'go along to get along' will be ambivilent, supporting it when it is popular to do so, deploring it when that is what is the popular thing to do.
We interned thousands of Japanese Americans following Pearl Harbor, but not German Americans or Italian Americans.
We later came to regret it, and have paid out much in reparations.
McCarthy and HUAC destroyed the lives of MANY innocent people, and those committees and their trampling of the Constitution are now (rightly) deplored.
Nowhere in the article or supporting comments do I see any substantial disagreement that American Muslims are being radicalized--meaning turning against America in the name of Islam. We need to know more about who is doing this and what doctrines are used to this purpose. The practitioners of all religions should be held to account for the content of their dogma.
If there is another ideological group behaving the same way, it should be investigated also.
America welcomed Russian immigrants before and after WWII. We did not welcome Russian immigrants who came here to form a Communist colony whose intention was to subvert the free market capitalism that is the hallmark of our culture.
We similarly welcome Muslim immigrants who come here to adapt to American cultural values, such as those found in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We do not welcome Muslims who move here to found a colony based on the competing vision of human rights found in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam--Sharia law.
One fact the hearings are sure to bring to light is the ideological connection between peaceful Islamist colonists and violent Islamist radicals--the belief in doing whatever is necessary to remove all obstacles to the implantation and spread of Sharia law. The only difference between the two groups is their choice of different tactics.
They share the same goals.
Then, I'll substantially disagree with the notion that there were ever Russian immigrants who wanted to come build Communist colonies in the US. Russians who came here before WWII were fleeing the Bolsheviks; Russians coming after WWII were displaced forced laborers for Germany. The notion that they'd want to establish Communist outposts in the United States I can only most charitably describe as fantasy.
Third, I'll substantially disagree that you understand the concept of Sharia at all. It is religious law for Muslims, like halacha is for Jews. There are several flavors and interpretations of Sharia, just as there are many different interpretations of halacha. But ask yourself a simple question: if I'm a Muslim interested in creating a so-called "Sharia Law Colony", why in the world would I come to America, the most immodest and decadent country on the planet, to do so? Does that make an ounce of sense? It would be like Amish people going to live in LA.
With due respect to your opinion - which you stated well - anyone who has actually been around some Muslim Americans knows your claims here are poppycock. Best
1) That 25% of one New Jersey school has no radicalized Muslims?
2) There were no Communist organizers here when Sen. McCarthy started his hearings? Really?
3) a. Show me the equivalent of K.9:29 in halacha law
b. Why a Sharia law colony in America? What nation is providing the most resistance to the spread of Sharia law? America. Every Western movie fan knows that if you beat up the toughest guy in a bar, everyone esle will be easier to control.
Tofu. Swiss cheese. Try again.
What do you think Sharia Law is, exactly? So do all the legal texts like "Reliance of the Traveler" NOT describe Sharia Law? Do all the Muftis who make pronouncements and lectures about Sharia Law not know what it is? All the institutions like Al Azhar who claim to teach Islamic jurisprudence in fact actually not do so? All the countries that claim they have some components of Sharia Law in their legal systems are in fact lying?
If I were you, I would be more concerned about the Christian right, and their almost complete control of the GOP.
Look at the doctrine of "dominionism" -- and those Christians who think this nation was founded as a
Christian nation, and the most extreme who want to implement Old Testament law.
They are FAR more numerous than the Muslims who live here -- and since they practically control one political party, they are far more dangerous to religious liberty and the concept of separation of church and state.
In the case of Christianity--I agree with you about the ongoing efforts to re-inject religion into politics and I have said as much here many times and in my original post. We also have mature, well funded and broad based organizations that push back against Christianists--ACLU and Americans United.
So far, that sort of pushback against those who promote Sharia law has been largely dismissed as a social disease--Islamophobia.
In 1961, Jack Kennedy had to convince non-Catholics that he understood the proper division between loyalty he owed the Pope and Church doctrine and what he owed to his fellow citizens and the laws of America. He got it right, in the face of pressure from some Catholics.
American Muslims are facing a similar situation regarding their desire to promote a version of Sharia law that is unacceptable to non-Muslim Americans, like me, who demand that all Americans should be governed by civil law only.
These religious "laws" should be recognized for what they are--membership rules for social clubs--otherwise, the religion should be registered as a political party.
Either way is okay by me, but we should be strict about mixing the two. Daily headlines show the good sense of that idea.
Not to mention, it's guaranteed that cherry-picked quotes are going to be taken from these hearings by Islamaphobic bloggers, and misrepresented as "proof" of how radical Islam is poised to take over America.
Muslim Americans, be warned: the folks conducting these hearings are not your friends; their motives are not what they claim.
Other than that, it is an excellent post (but I would advise Americans to remember it is not only the Islamophobes who can cherry-pick quotes and use them to portray a group of people in a negative light. alQaeda is going to do just that to every outrageous comment by the people running this monstrosity, and those 'experts' that they are sure to invite)
Rubbish. No other group has committed so much of violence and for such long period on themselves and on others, fuelled by theological verses and religious frency, as the followers of Islam have done. No wonder Europe is realising that it has placed its population in a serious existential threat by allowing unchecked immigration and by adopting the policy of multiculturalism..
I am not denying that there are violent Muslims. There are also violent Christians, violent Jews and violent Hindus (oh those squabbles over a temple/mosque). Perhaps we should see violence as an inherent, and regrettable, trait in humans that we should strive to remove from ourselves.
In AMERICA, which is the subject of this farcical future hearing, Muslims are no more likely to behave in a violent or radical manner than any other religious group.
And if you can prove me wrong, give me solid facts, don't start alluding to actions in other countries (which can as well be attributed to cultural or socio-economic factors, not religion).
On a day to day basis, in America, there are more acts of violence, intimidation, and bullying carried out in the name of Christianity than in the name of any other religion.
But I won't say all Christians are radical terrorists.
Is there any reason to believe that things are any different in the US?
(note, these are the police statistics, and even acts that never got beyond the earliest of planning stages before being dropped without any police action are included in the totals)
http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/EU_Terrorism_Situation_and_Trend_Report_TE-SAT/Tesat2010.pdf
"He called the IRA "the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland. A Northern Irish judge ordered King ejected from the former's courtroom, describing him as “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”. King called himself "the Ollie North of Ireland. He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA activities and providing them with weapons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King
French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Thursday declared that multiculturalism had failed, joining a growing number of world leaders or ex-leaders who have condemned it.
"We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him," he said in a television interview in which he declared the concept a "failure."
British Prime Minister David Cameron last month pronounced his country's long-standing policy of multiculturalism a failure, calling for better integration of young Muslims to combat home-grown extremism.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's former prime minister John Howard and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar have also in recent months said multicultural policies have not successfully integrated immigrants.
http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/multiculturalism-has-failed-says-french-president_129221.html
http://www.abudhabigallupcenter.com/File/144842/MusWest_EuroMuslim_Report_POLL_en-US_11-01-10_sa_Web.pdf
British extremist Anjem Choudary - who once said 'the flag of Islam will fly over the White House' - has announced he will lead a demonstration calling on Muslims to establish the Sharia law across America.
The rally, planned for March 3, is to take place just weeks after his on-screen row with Fox News presenter Sean Hannity.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358792/Anjem-Choudary-lead-White-House-protest-calling-Muslims-rise-up.html#ixzz1EZSdh4i0
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358792/Anjem-Choudary-lead-White-House-protest-calling-Muslims-rise-up.html#ixzz1EZSdh4i0