Socially and professionally, we as American Jews have often felt as though we were being 'put on the stand' for our beliefs. Sometimes our beliefs even seemed to be on trial nationally -- notably during the 'Red Scares' leading up to and during the Cold War, when a disproportionate number of Jews were blacklisted.
But seldom has our religion actually been put on the stand. No organ of the federal government has, to my knowledge, held hearings to investigate American Jewry for disloyalty or radicalization. We may have feared such public humiliation -- but it has not yet materialized.
By contrast, an effort is currently underway to single out American Muslims. Representative Peter King (R-NY), Chair of the Homeland Security Committee of the House of Representatives, has declared his intention to hold a public hearing in Congress on the "radicalization" of Muslim Americans.
King declared on a segment of Fox News this past December that "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."
Rhetoric like this is troubling; King's efforts to put these congressional hearings in motion are dumbfounding.
First, King overlooks the tremendous amount of collaboration between law enforcement and Muslim communal leaders. To name but several Muslim leaders (who I am fortunate to call colleagues), Imam Khalid Latif is himself a uniformed member of the NYPD; Imam Yahya Hendi was honored by the FBI for his leadership and work to improve collaboration between law enforcement and the Muslim community; and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has worked closely with the State Department to foster greater trust of the United States government within majority-Muslim countries overseas. Though some of the most prominent figures in the American Muslim community, they are but three of numerous Muslim leaders who collaborate actively with law enforcement. There are always exceptions to every rule, but Representative King misidentifies the rule itself.
Second, if Representative King actually seeks to enhance cooperation between Muslim Americans and law enforcement, singling out their religious community is a losing strategy. Instead, if anything, King should ask what Imams Latif, Hendi, and Rauf are doing right and how to get others to follow suit. Praising known best-practices, rather than criticizing the amorphous, is a better strategy for engaging the American Muslim community in the effort to thwart extremists of all religions.
Third, Rep. King must be consistent and fair if he is to hold hearings about individual communities at all. In spite of the fact that the perpetrator of the shooting spree in Tucson, Arizona was not Muslim, King has publicly refused to broaden the scope of the proposed inquiry to include the radicalization of other American communities (whether defined religiously or not) or individuals therein. In refusing to do so, he delegitimizes the hearings he will hold -- as well, one fears, as his own high office.
As Chair of the Homeland Security Committee in the House of Representatives, Mr. King must do better. Defending our homeland begins with our rights -- and the rights of our religious communities not to be singled out and set up for the possibility of public humiliation.
The hearings must be stopped even before they are started. Otherwise, they may well lead to the humiliation and marginalization of an American religious community.
See the new Religious Freedom USA campaign to learn what you can do to stop the hearings before they start. This article is reproduced with permission from Rabbis for Human Rights.
Follow Joshua Stanton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dialogueeditor
Russell Simmons: Honor Dr. Martin Luther King by Embracing the American Muslim Community
NYC mayor: King's radical Islam hearings not right - WSJ.com
Rep. King's radical Islam hearings are inappropriate: Bloomberg ...
Peter King: I'll Hold Hearings On Radical Islam
Muslim groups eye King hearings warily
Fearing witch hunt, Muslims denounce planned hearings
Peter King Listed By Secret Secret As Pro-Terrorist Threat To Pres. Reagan
It's here:
http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/01/24/are-american-muslims-being-radicalized/
"Though acts of violent extremism by U.S. Muslims appear to have grown, their potency has not. American Muslims remain more moderate, diverse and integrated than the Muslim populations in any other Western society."
"The paranoia about homegrown terrorism thus vastly overstates al-Qaeda's strength and reflects our leaders' inability to make honest assessments about the true threats to America's security".
"So why does the myth of homegrown terrorism persist? In part because, like every hardy political meme, it serves the interests of loudmouths on both ends of the ideological spectrum."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2044047,00.html#ixzz1C7RL44PV
Click on the audio link near the top.
The Myth of Homegrown Islamic Terrorism
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2044047,00.html#ixzz1BxxkWU4U
Investigate away!
There is a more sensible suggestion. Read this:
William Ewart Gladstone (1809–1898) was Prime Minister of Great Britain four times: 1868–74, 1880–85, 1886 and 1892–94. He called the Qur'an an "accursed book" and once held it up during a session of Parliament, declaring: "So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world."
He could have just as easily held up the Bible and not improved or diminished his foolish statement.
He was driven by his Christian faith, he is a big supporter of the Church, proposed that Turks be kicked out of Europe, thought that the Turks were not as smart as Europeans (this was the colonial period) and ruled during the colonial period. All of this factors into his opinion because, after all, he was a politician.
Hardly 5% of German population were members of Hitler party; but the silent majority supported Hitler in the holocaust.
Not many muslims will agree: that all religions are equal; a firm belief in gender equality; obeying local; laws and not aspiring for shariaa imposition and not aspiring for world domination of Islam and universal imposition of shariaa. Read this:
"SLAMIC preacher Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon points heavenwards to emphasise his message for the governments of Australia -- there is no God but Allah and only his laws should be obeyed.
"My attack is on the Prime Minister of Australia," he said yesterday. "I hate the parliament in Canberra. I want to go straight for the jugular vein and advise the parliament that they have no right to legislate. They should immediately step down and let the Muslims take over."
"One day Australia will live under sharia; it's inevitable," he said. "If they (Australians) don't accept it, that's not our problem. We hope, and our objective is to have a peaceful transition, but when you look at history that has never been the case. There's always been a fight. It is inevitable that one day there will be a struggle for Islam in Australia."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/pm-go-and-let-the-muslims-take-over/story-e6frg6nf-1225991362018
You can pick any loonies from every religions and believe me that loonies could not speak behalf on whole group. You are sure have a good intentions!
Your second point is completely irrelevant. Just because you have neither heard of the IDF or the Mossad is completely irrelevant to the article.
How is it politically correct to state that Muslims are not collectively guilty of terrorism and that not all American Muslims should be perceived as the enemy within?
It doesn't seem that you are ready for an open discussion about Islamic terrorism, because you have already lumped all Muslims in the "guilty" pot without even identifying that the vast majority of terrorist attacks attributed to Muslims in the U.S. are merely false flag events with the sole purpose of demonizing Muslims.
This is not conspiracy theory, but rather conspiracy reality. There are lunatic elements in the world that believe that the great rapture will not occur until Muslims are removed from the planet and they believe the faster the world can go to war with Muslims, the faster we can bring about Armageddon.
Salaam,
Came across something interesting. Was talking to someone and they said that the Jews are planting a certain type of tree all over Israel.
It reminded me of this Hadith:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews
(killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The
stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me,
come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of
tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the
Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).
Anyone have any idea or insight on the English name of the 'Gharkad' tree?
Tahirrrrrrrrr "
via
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?103772-The-Gharkad-tree-tree-of-the-Jews
The "what about (blank)" argument really doesn't apply here. Despite the hysterical commentary from armchair pundits, by all accounts, the Tuscon shooter was mentally ill, not a follower of any particular religious or political philosophy.
The author's point about encouraging those in the Muslim community who do work with authorities and speak against radicalization is well taken. But that does not erase the real concern over Muslim radicalization which we've seen in some thwarted and some real attacks in the U.S. and are seeing repeatedly in attacks in Europe. Denying the threat doesn't make it go away.
"That's interesting, particularly after we've unpacked Emerson and Spencer's specialties a little. Why would Muslim leaders be "relieved" that experts on jihad and Shariah aren't going to testify in open hearings before the American people?
I think the answer is they don't want to see the doctrinal and historical and cultural links that bind jihad and Shariah to mainstream Islam exposed. Think of it: We've come almost a decade since 9/11 without even lame hearings (like King's unfortunately promise to be) on the links between Islam and jihad.
Indeed, both government and media, beginning on 9/12, have increasingly self-censored themselves into decoupling Islam from jihad altogether. Here, all of a sudden, appears the possibility of a bona fide national discussion."
http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2011/01/20/lame_hearings_on_islam_will_do_nothing
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3AABDE7A-531F-442B-94AB-0F285A34C71E
From what I have read, Muslims have refused to debate Spencer for years and years. The problem is, he knows their literature and material backwards and forwards, so he cannot be bullied or pushed around. Anyone who reads one or two of his books will quickly realize that he is very knowledgeable.
And for those who claim he just tells lies, where are the books debunking Spencer's claims? He has been working in this area for decades. That should give you plenty of time, if he is such a threat.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/robert-spencer-is-a-chicken/
http://www.seekingilm.com/archives/300
Why anyone would have him speak an any hearings is incomprehensible.
This is pretty much the way we do things in America.
So why do Muslim leaders refuse Mr. Spencer's repeated invitations to public debate? If Muslim scholars were offering Mr. Spencer a chance to debate and he was turning it down, I would wonder what he had to be worried about.
It goes the other way, too.
I am suprised that this man has so much power in the US!
Whats wrong with you Americans?
He is not the only one...