As the upcoming fall elections approach, much of the noise and criticism of Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and his hearings on the growing threat of Muslim radicalization have died down as the media has moved on to other news. This isn’t purely a partisan issue or a Republican or Democrat issue, says journalist and known activist Brigitte Gabriel, but it is an “American issue” and should be addressed. In the words of Rep. King himself, he sees his responsibility seriously by asking “tough questions about counterterrorism” and the fact that these hearings show “the mainstream media doesn’t always get the [issue] right.”
This most recent hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee on June 20 occurred without much of the fanfare of previous meetings, but its findings and testimonies were substantive. Most of the witnesses before the committee were of the Muslim faith and their testimonies reflected that fact. Primary witnesses at the hearing were Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, MD, President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Ms. Asra Nomani, a former journalist, Dr. Qanta A. A. Ahmed, a British citizen and Permanent Resident in the US, and Ms. Faiza Patel, Co-Director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Dr. Jasser’s assessment was frank, stating that America needed to address, diagnose and seek the process of treatment for Muslim radicalization by seeing past all the outcry and rage these hearings initially generated. A primary problem is that many Americans lump Muslims into one cohesive religious group, when the opposite is true. Muslims have different structures according to their branch of Islam and most are not supportive of radical Islam. Dr. Jasser specifically named the DHS for its resistance to defining Islamic radicalism, and said that this does not help remedy the problem at hand. Instead of avoiding terminology such as “Islamist,” the U. S. government should outline what aggressive militant Islam is to the public and combat misinformation and incorrect public perception, all while reaching out to the US Muslim community. He cited the efforts of CAIR and other similar causes that believe quite the opposite and act in that manner. He encouraged efforts to reform the military to ensure militant Islamic members were not a part of the armed forces, to avoid a repeat of the 2009 Fort Hood shootings and instill a sense of loyalty to the US, instead of to Islamic extremism.
Asra Nomani’s testimony described her life experiences, but most importantly, told how the radical Muslim community continues to “circle the wagons” to avoid shame and place blame elsewhere, while not reforming itself. As a friend of the murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, she was greatly affected by radical Islam and its influence (especially in Pakistan). The Muslim community continues to be rooted in past grievances and is in denial because of it. Little do they notice they actually use it to rationalize future behavior. First, they deny, then demonize, and deflect these wounds, then become defensive in blaming others while framing the event as an attack on Islam. She ended her testimony saying that it is up to the Muslim community to “own up” and take responsibility for their actions and stop this vicious and violent cycle.
Dr. Qanta Ahmed testified that his experiences as a Muslim doctor showed how radical Islam is making its way into American Muslim communities from abroad. He blames domestic Islamic terrorism for brainwashing in certain mosques across the US, as well as in places such as Pakistan. In addition, he felt that radical Islam pounced on the perception that Muslims are victims of US aggression and the US deserved such violence. Dr. Ahmed also strongly emphasized, contrary to the mainstream media, that the civil liberties of Muslims in the US are not under attack and encourages an open forum for combating Islamic extremism in the US. This is an important issue to him as a practicing Muslim and stated that this is not solely a national problem, but a “transnational” problem that must be addressed, if the US and the West seek to combat radical Islamist ideology.
Faiza Patel’s testimony countered most of what the previous three witnesses had stated, i.e. that counterterrorist practices and the belief of Islamic radicalization is factually unfounded and incorrect. Her primary concern is that this is not empirically supported and could be a foundation for a vendetta against American Muslims. She stated that hearings like these create a stigma or a label of all Muslims, and many American Muslims do not fight against it. Using poll numbers, she cited that the majority of American Muslims, 92%, disagree with al-Qaeda’s ideology and generally hold a “very unfavorable” view of that organization. In addition, 9 out of 10 American Muslims strongly condemn the 9/11 attacks. Patel does not believe that the labeling of a radical Islamic threat to America is not supported empirically and could lead to further racial and anti-Muslim discrimination in the US. Hearings like these, she believed, hurt American Muslims overall and do not help in cooperative efforts even though they agree with the majority of Americans on countless issues.
A common theme in all their testimonies is how there still remains a cultural gap between the US government and the Muslim community. The majority of witnesses denounced radical Muslim activity and actively want moderates Muslims to help curb homegrown extremist activities. Several witnesses welcomed this hearing in order to address this important topic within their own communities. All in all, it made for an interesting event but leaves room for improvement in the relationship between the US government and the Muslim community.
Spencer Irvine is a research assistant at Accuracy in Academia.
If you would like to comment on this article, e-mail mal.kline@academia.org.
