Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Are We “Flailing after Muslims”?

Peter King, Congressman from Long Island and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, is opening hearings into Muslim radicalization in America. Bob Herbert, writing in the NY Times, states that “flailing after Muslims” is an injustice, and castigates Representative King  for “ bogus allegations”.

Herbert claims that there is “no good reason” for these hearings. Well, for starters, how about  13 good reasons? How about the 13 Americans killed by  U.S. Army major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood,  while he was shouting Allahu Akbar? Or how about the enormous sums from Saudi Arabia pouring into American mosques to support radical jihadist imams?  Or how about the many Islamic organizations in America who defend or justify terrorism? Or how about participation by numerous foreign Muslim terrorists on national speaking tours in the US, all with significant support from home-grown Islamic groups?

In classical overkill, Herbert compares King’s  examination of Islamic extremism to such events as the stigma of the early years of the AIDS epidemic, to the excesses of Joe McCarthy, to the discrimination against blacks which led to lynch mobs, to the internment of Japanese-American citizens. Does he really want to compare legitimate Congressional hearings to these historical monstrosities? Drawing analogies that are not remotely similar allows Herbert to claim that King is promulgating a  “witch hunt”.

Herbert points out that some Muslims have cooperated  with Federal authorities by turning in terrorist suspects. But he conveniently ignores such facts as CAIR’s posters that exhorted followers to  "Build a Wall of Resistance …. Don't Talk to the FBI."

Two of the largest mainstream Islamist organizations,  CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) , America's largest Islamic civil liberties group,  and ISNA (Islamist Society of North America) have records of making excuses for or defending Islamist radicals. Both have connections to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other terrorist groups.

Daniel Pipes has pointed out that  “the Muslim population in this country is not like any other group, for it includes within it a substantial body of people—many times more numerous than the agents of Osama bin Ladin—who share with the suicide hijackers a hatred of the United States and the desire, ultimately, to transform it into a nation living under the strictures of militant Islam”

Herbert claims that the King hearings are a witch hunt. Really? Well, perhaps Herbert has never seen a real witch hunt. Perhaps he is unaware of the promotion of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, a notorious forgery that claims that Jews are plotting to rule the world, and that has been used to justify anti-Semitic killing. Perhaps he is unaware of how Islamist families hunt down and kill their daughters who have been raped in order to preserve the honor of the family (and yes, this has happened in America), or how these groups refuse to condemn suicide bombing, or amputation for thievery, or execution for abandoning  Islam for another religion

It is often pointed out that non-Muslim groups have also performed terrorist acts. True., But when Muslims are 1% of the US population, and perform 50% of terrorist attacks, surely this merits closer scrutiny.  

The claims that the King hearings are bogus do not withstand close scrutiny. Yet, as   David J. Rusin  points out, one third of  American Muslims, when questioned in a Pew poll, either favored Al Qaeda or refused to answer. A significant number favored suicide bombings

And according to reformist Muslims, Islamist leaders and organizations do more to deny the problem than defeat it.  The hearings have led to  massive resistance  by Muslim groups who do want any probing of Islamic extremism; this is suggestive of their real mindset and a reflection of their meager track record in combating extremism.

Perhaps when the mainstream Islamic organizations advocate equal treatment for gays, women, and Jews, we can then speak of witch hunts. And  perhaps when these organizations  speak out against attacks on non-Muslims, we can then speak of bogus hearings. And perhaps when Islamic groups condemn, without equivocation, those who train young Muslims to be radical jihadists, then we can refer to the King hearings as an injustice. Until then, we must have these hearings. And meanwhile the New York Times continues to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Please bookmark!

No comments:

Post a Comment