Muslim group challenges 'radicalization' hearings

[Turborama]

Source: CNN

By the CNN Wire Staff
March 9, 2011 5:08 a.m. EST

Washington (CNN) -- A Muslim advocacy group says it will hold a news conference Wednesday to challenge Rep. Peter King to offer facts to back up his claims that "85 percent" of mosques in New York and nationwide are run by "radicals."

King, the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, will convene a hearing Thursday that he says will focus on "radicalization in the American Muslim community."

=snip=

On Tuesday, a national group, Muslim Advocate, launched a website aimed at tracking what it calls anti-Muslim rhetoric, particularly among elected officials.

"Our concern is that the King hearings are going to sow fear and mistrust of the Muslim community at a time when the nation needs to be coming together," said Farhana Khera, executive director of the group that launched www.WhatUnites.Us . "It's essentially a congressional stamp of approval for anti-Muslim hate."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/09/radicalization.hearings/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

---

The Peter King Hearings: Giving Anti-Muslim Rhetoric the Congressional Stamp of Approval

On March 10, Congressman Peter King will hold congressional hearings unfairly targeting the American Muslim community.

Whether for political gain or public notoriety, anti-Muslim rhetoric and bigotry has become acceptable in political and civic discourse. These hearings are the worst example – because they legitimize anti-Muslim rhetoric by giving them a congressional stamp of approval.

Peter King has chosen to ignore the fact that those who engage in violence motivated by extremist beliefs in America today hail from myriad racial, ethnic, religious and political backgrounds. Less than two weeks ago, http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/spring/the-year-in-hate-extremism-2010">the Southern Poverty Law Center released a report on the explosive growth of right-wing anti-government and anti-hate groups. Yet the Peter King hearings are focused on scapegoating one community. America will be less safe as a result.

In the meantime, American Muslims are doing their part to keep us safe by regularly reporting criminal activity to law enforcement. In fact, law enforcement officials from the national to state to local levels have spotlighted the critical role that American Muslims play to defend democracy and security.

WhatUnites.Us calls on all Americans to focus on what unites us and to call out the hateful rhetoric and actions that divide us. Here’s what you can do to support the campaign:

* http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5779/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5901">Contact your member of congress and ask them to take a stand against hearings like this that not only divide us, but make us less safe.
* Email this page to your friends.
* Share this page with your friends on Facebook
* RT: @UniteWithUs: BREAKING: Peter King seeks to divide Americans. Tell Congress to reject anti-Muslim rhetoric. BITLY LINK #UnitesUs


From: http://whatunites.us/news/peter-king-hearings-giving-anti-muslim-rhetoric-congressional-stamp-approval

[Kolesar]

1. The Southern Baptist Convention "endorsing the war on Iraq" was damn radical

CNN does not even say what state King is from.

[secondwind]

2. Why isn't King interested in investigating the white supremacist militia groups that are

springing up all around the country??? Just sayin'.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. This is so embarrassing.

So, there's NO other concern more important that demonizing Muslims? No whacko right-wing militias that want to take down the gummit? I want to know what people are thinking when they vote for this guy. Really. What's the demographic in his district?

[rfranklin]

4. It's part of the Republican 2012 campaign...

they have to rile up their "base." As their demographic gets smaller and smaller, the base they have to rally is necessarily more and more the most fringe lunatics that this country can produce. That's why the Tea Party is so loony. It was a way to rebrand the disgraced party of Bush Jr. Now they are having a hard time directing the newly elected Congresspeople who actually think the Tea Party was a real phenomenon. The newbies don't understand that it was just a marketing ploy.

[JanDutchy]

5. How is the irrational (front) view to unite/ connect with objective observation?

[Turborama]

6. That question doesn't make sense n/t

[JanDutchy]

12. Please explain

[Turborama]

13. Explain what? Your question doesn't make sense.

Hence, if you want an answer I think you might need to explain what it means.

[JanDutchy]

17. Please explain your question to me and motivate please your answer

[Bragi]

20. If I may...

JanDuchy, you wrote above: How is the irrational (front) view to unite/ connect with objective observation? Right?

If so, Turborama is correct in pointing out that your sentence doesn't make sense and cannot be understood because it is not correct grammar.

You should restate your point if you want anyone to understand or reply to what you are saying.

- B

[oldhippydude]

8. Peter King

is the new Joe Mc Carthy... homeland security is the new super huac

[trof]

7. Read about King's SUPPORT for terrorists:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/06/953330/-Rep-Peter-King-was-seen-as-a-threat-by-Secret-Service,-supported-and-gave-money-to-Terrorists

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[pinboy3niner]

9. K&R

[Bragi]

10. What have we to say other than "shutup"?

I ask this because the left seems to be unable to come up with any coherent response to this kind of event beyond calling for the shutting down and silencing of anyone who holds and wants to express any concerns at all about radical Islamists.

I gather that the Dems on the ctee tried to get the hearings broadened to look into any and all forms of political violence stemming from radical political views. That was a good strategy. I think the left needs to continue talking about broadening this kind of inquiry, not shutting it down, which is a sure losing strategy.

To me, generally claiming that anyone who wants to focus on Islamic radicalization is just a racist bigot is bad strategy. It is also no more accurate than those who might allege that anyone who wants to look into, say, violence against abortion doctors is an anti-religious bigot.

I know I am in the minority of people here who are vocal on this matter, but I honestly think the left would be better off if we took this kind of debate, and the concerns of people that underlie it, seriously, and we should respond with facts and information and compassion.

We need to place Islamic extremism within the context and continuum of other types of political extremism that are equally offensive to our democratic and liberal values.

And we should should stop with confining our response to over-heated vitriolic condemnations and smears, which I think simply render us irrelevant to the discussion that is taking place, and will continue to take place.

At least according to me!

[Turborama]

14. Challenging Rep. Peter King to offer facts to back up his claims that "85 percent" of mosques...

... in New York and nationwide are run by "radicals" is not "calling for the shutting down and silencing" of him.

Quite the opposite.

As for the rest of what you said, seeing as we've been toing and froing over this multiple times I'll just simply say that my response is contained in the What Unites Us article in the OP.

And this graph for some perspective...

[Bragi]

18. Clarification on things I never said

Challenging Rep. Peter King to offer facts to back up his claims that "85 percent" of mosques in New York and nationwide are run by "radicals" is not "calling for the shutting down and silencing" of him - Turborama

I only flag the statement above because some other readers might read it as I did, and think it is a response to a posting from me expressing a contrary view (it indicates it is in response to #10 above).

I don't think anyone can read that post (see link below) and conclude that I said anything even vaguely resembling what T. attributes to me, as above. I didn't say anything at all about King, who is clearly a right-winger with a huge agenda.

T. then expresses his agreement with the "What Unites Us" article in the OP, and again presents it as though it contests my opposite view.

This being so, I feel compelled to announce, right here and now, that nothing in the "What Unites Us" statement linked to by T. causes me any discomfort. I agree with it.

My only suggestion is to add to it this:

There should be a specific endorsement of the position taken by the Democrats on the committee, which (I think) is to enlarge the topic under consideration so as to include study of all sources of all violent political action, not just violence involving American Muslims.

The possibility of violence and the harm arising from any community by anyone from any group is a legitimate concerns in any free society, far as I'm concerned. The left shouldn't hesitate to address that matter, when and as necessary. But if that's our topic, then let's have at it, which means we would not just focus exclusively on Muslims.

That seems to be the congressional Dems position, and I support that.

T. then concludes by appending one of his favorite info-graphics, again suggesting that he is responding to my repeated denials regarding the proper structure of the Muslim world his selected set of metrics. Once again, I wish endorse the contextual graphic in the context offered.

I make the above declarations in the hope it avoids unnecessary debate on matters not in dispute.

Posting #10 --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4762051&mesg_id=4762127

[Turborama]

19. Weird that you replied to me but talked about me not to me. Anyway, glad you agree

Bragi What have we to say other than "shutup"?

I ask this because the left seems to be unable to come up with any coherent response to this kind of event beyond calling for the shutting down and silencing of anyone who holds and wants to express any concerns at all about radical Islamists.

King has expressed his "concerns" and the response isn't "shut up", it has been "give us the facts that back up your assertions" as I quoted from the OP.


The reason I didn't answer fully was because you continuously go on and on about "there's never any other response" from the "left" other than "shutting down and silencing of anyone who holds and wants to express any concerns at all about radical Islamists" but you never express what your "concerns" actually are.

I have tried multiple times to find out the actual details of your "concerns" but you always appear to avoid giving specifics.

Well, here's another chance. Please, what are your specific concerns about "radical Islamists" in America?


BTW FWIW I agreed with most of #10 but "over-heated vitriolic condemnations and smears" are not as common as you make them sound. They are reserved for racists and bigots who should not get a free pass just because it's Muslims who are being discussed.

Also, I wouldn't describe calling someone out for being a bigot or a racist a "smear", it's calling them what they are.

Back to the topic in hand, here's something I just learnt about King's MO. He is the one who is shutting down and silencing Muslims in his special hearing...

What comes out of the Homeland Security proceedings will in part depend on those testifying.

King bypassed all the Muslim organizations that have traditionally spoken for and about the Muslim community in the United States, including the Islamic Circle of North America, the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society, to name just a few.

=snip=

But detractors note that King also has not tapped a single imam or social service provider, or a representative from numerous "anti-radicalization" programs that Muslim American organizations have created in the past decade to keep disaffected youths from embracing terrorism.

King also took flak as it became clear that no law enforcers would be taking the stand to substantiate the claim that Muslim Americans have been uncooperative in intelligence gathering operations. He said it was not a position that his sources wanted to state publicly, because of the sensitivity.

But the lineup will include Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who will say just the opposite — that he has nothing but excellent cooperation from Muslims in his community. He was invited to testify by minority Democrats on the committee.

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41958327/ns/us_news-security/

The article also earlier stated...

"A coalition of 50 human and civil rights groups, religious organizations and Muslim advocacy groups appealed to King to cancel the hearings or frame them to look at all forms of violence motivated by extremist beliefs, but he rejected their call."

Here is the letter they wrote (emphasis mine)...

February 1, 2011

The Honorable John Boehner
Office of the Speaker
H-232 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Minority Leader
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi:

The undersigned community organizations and groups concerned about civil and human
rights and national security strongly object to the hearings on violent extremism recently
announced by the Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security, Congressman Peter King.
Chairman King has characterized the hearings, tentatively scheduled for February 2011, as
focusing exclusively on the “radicalization of the American Muslim community and homegrown
terrorism.” If Chairman King proceeds with these hearings, please urge him to address all
forms of violence motivated by extremist beliefs and to do so in a full, fair, and objective way.

Today, American Muslims reflect every race and ethnicity that comprise our nation’s rich
heritage. In fact, Muslims have been an integral part of America since its founding when the
first slave ships arrived on its shores. Muslims serve our nation as teachers, business owners,
factory workers, cab drivers, doctors, lawyers, law enforcement, firefighters, members of
Congress, and members of the armed forces. Their research and innovation adds to the progress
of our nation in science, business, medicine, and technology. They contribute to every aspect of
our nation’s economy and society. The essence of our country is e pluribus unum: out of many,
practicing their faith freely and contributing each in their own way, comes a strong, unified one.

The hearings planned by Chairman King, however, are inconsistent with this vision of
America. Singling out a group of Americans for government scrutiny based on their faith is
divisive and wrong. These hearings will inevitably examine activities protected by the First
Amendment, an affront to fundamental freedoms upon which our country was founded. It
harkens back to hearings held in the 1950s by then-U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy. That dark
chapter in our history taught us that Congress has a solemn duty to wield its investigatory power
responsibly.

In the course of justifying the focus of the hearings, Chairman King has made broad and
unsubstantiated assertions about the American Muslim community. For example, he continues
to perpetuate the myth that 80% of mosques in America are run by extremists, implying that
they are hotbeds of extremism. To the contrary, experts have concluded that mosque attendance
is a significant factor in the prevention of extremism. In addition, during a recent interview,
Chairman King made a statement insinuating that American Muslims are not American:

“When a war begins, we’re all Americans. But in this case, this is not the
situation. And whether it’s pressure, whether it’s cultural tradition, whatever, the
fact is the Muslim community does not cooperate anywhere near to the extent that
it should. The irony is that we’re living in two different worlds.”

If Chairman King is suggesting that American Muslims are somehow less American –
simply by virtue of their faith – then that is an affront to all Americans.

Providing a public, government platform for these erroneous and offensive views has
consequences. The American public takes cues from government officials. These hearings will
almost certainly increase widespread suspicion and mistrust of the American Muslim community
and stoke anti-Muslim sentiment. During 2010, we saw an increase in anti-Muslim hatred in
public discourse, as well as hate crimes and violence targeting American Muslims, and those
perceived to be Muslim, including vandalism and arson of mosques, physical attacks, bullying of
children in schools, and attempted murder. No American should live in fear for his or her safety,
and Congress should not help create a climate where it is acceptable to target a particular faith
community for discrimination, harassment, and violence.

Furthermore, a hearing that demonizes the American Muslim community will not go
unnoticed by Muslims around the world and will contribute to perceptions of how the U.S.
government treats Muslims. Equal treatment and respect for all faiths are among our nation’s
greatest strengths and are essential to a free and just society.

Our nation faces serious threats, both foreign and domestic. Violence motivated by
extremist beliefs is not committed by members of one racial, religious, or political group. The
Committee on Homeland Security should focus on keeping us safe, rather than engaging in fearmongering
and divisive rhetoric that only weakens the fabric of our nation and distracts us from
actual threats.

We strongly urge you to object to the hearings in their current form. If Chairman King
wishes to address violent extremism, then we hope you will ensure that he examines violence
motivated by extremist beliefs, in all its forms, in a full, fair and objective way. The hearings
should proceed from a clear understanding that individuals are responsible for their actions, not
entire communities.

Thank you for your attention to the issues raised in this letter. We look forward to
hearing from you.

Sincerely,

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
American Pakistan Foundation
Amnesty International USA
Arab American Institute
Arab Community Center for Economic and Social
Services
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
Center for Constitutional Rights
Council on American-Islamic Relations
EMERGE-USA
Human Rights First
Indian Muslim Relief & Charities
Interfaith Alliance
Islamic Medical Association of North America
Islamic Networks Group
Islamic Society of North America
Japanese American Citizens League
Muslim Advocates
Muslim Public Affairs Council
National Network for Arab American Communities
Open Society Institute
Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee
Sikh Coalition
South Asian Americans Leading Together
Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
Association of American Muslim Lawyers
American Muslim Law Enforcement Officers Association
Arab American Association of New York
Asian Law Caucus
Bay Area Association of Muslim Lawyers
Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago
DRUM - Desis Rising Up and Moving
Florida Muslim Bar Association
The Freedom and Justice Foundation
Georgia Association of Muslim Lawyers
Houston Shifa Services Foundation
Inner-City Muslim Action Network
Islamic Shura Council of Southern California
Majlis Ash-Shura of Metropolitan New York
Michigan Muslim Bar Association
Muslim Alliance of Indiana
Muslim Bar Association of Chicago
Muslim Bar Association of New York
Muslim Bar Association of Southern California
Muslim Consultative Network
Network of Arab American Professionals - NY
New England Muslim Bar Association
New Jersey Muslim Bar Association
Northern California Islamic Council
Ohio Muslim Bar Association
Somali Community Services - San Jose, CA

Source (PDF): http://www.muslimadvocates.org/Coalition%20Ltr%20re%20King%20hearings,%202-1-11.pdf

[Bragi]

21. Response

You wrote:

Weird that you replied to me but talked about me not to me. Anyway, glad you agree

It's just a debating style, one that I think has merit in some settings. The idea is that each person address their arguments to a dispassionate observer. It can help avoid getting personal. (I live in a country with a British style parliamentary democracy, and matters are debated through the speaker in such parliaments.)

You then wrote:

King has expressed his "concerns" and the response isn't "shut up", it has been "give us the facts that back up your assertions" as I quoted from the OP.

First, note that the quote you select from my posting makes it clear that I'm talking about how the left generally reacts to these things. I was actually motivated and responding not to anything King said, but to what I was reading in the comments so far in this thread, which don't move much beyond the hurling of insult, period. I think we need to make a case, not just hurl insults.

You then write:

You continuously go on and on about "there's never any other response" from the "left" other than "shutting down and silencing of anyone who holds and wants to express any concerns at all about radical Islamists" but you never express what your "concerns" actually are.

I have tried multiple times to find out the actual details of your "concerns" but you always appear to avoid giving specifics.

Well, here's another chance. Please, what are your specific concerns about "radical Islamists" in America?

I don't recall getting that exact question before, but here's my answer:

I don't have any generalized concern about the Muslim community in America. None at all. Your diagram tells the story there. I do have some concerns about radical Islamists, but as you point out, they are a tiny part of the whole.

Within that context, my concerns about radical Islamists are neither exotic or surprising: we all know that there have been a few radical Islamists who have on occasion perpetrated political acts of violence in America. Further, we are led to believe that there are others -- a tiny but plausible group of Islamic radicals -- whose planned violent plots have been thwarted by law enforcement, etc.

And it is plausible to imagine that somewhere right now there is a radical Islamist somewhere in America pondering bad deeds. It certainly seems likely, just as it seems likely that there is an anti-abortion nut job sitting somewhere in America pondering murder.

This being so, I think it is necessary that such people to be watched and prevented from doing violence, a view which reflects, as I understand it, that of just about the entire Muslim community in America. I am not opposed to public discussion of this possibility, or having hearings on it, BUT I think this needs to be examined in the overall context of any and all forms of political extremism that can lead to violent actions.

Beyond that, my only major issue that relates to the topic here is with the whole notion of suppressing free speech so as to avoid offense to Muslims, or anyone else, which you know I am pretty absolutely opposed to. I have experienced lifelong discomfort with hate speech laws, which I support but only in the narrowest sense. I am really concerned when free speech is curtailed simply to avoid offense to a religious group.

Mainly, I believe that free speech is the proper antidote to hate speech. Because of this, I favour open debate and discussion of any concerns that anyone wants to raise about any particular group. If the concerns are without merit, then free speech by offended and interested and fair-minded parties will properly look after the situation.

I'm not sure how that moves us forward, but those are the concerns I have that are relevant to our discussion. There may be others, but that's what is top of mind for me.

[chriscruzan]

11. One thing I noticed from the CNN interview

King wants to see American Muslims not Muslim Americans. I wonder how many politicians would choose country over God,when asked? I would venture to say, the Christian/Muslim/Jewish God would NOT like being second to the United States. ONE NATION OVER GOD, Divisible, with Liberty and Justice for some- the new republican mantra. OK, maybe not so new.

[glinda]

15. Imagine they are using our money to try to unseat Ellison from MN

[Turborama]

16. Muslim McCarthyism: Peter King's broad-brush indictment of the "Muslim community."

By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, March 9, 2011, at 8:47 AM ET

=snip=

These sweeping allegations—particularly the claim that law enforcement agents "throughout the country" are getting little or "no cooperation from Muslim leaders and imams"—don't jibe with http://sanford.duke.edu/centers/tcths/about/news_release20110202.php">a study issued last month by a consortium of North Carolina university researchers. The study found that in cases where Muslim-American terrorist suspects were brought to the attention of U.S. officials, "http://sanford.duke.edu/centers/tcths/about/documents/Kurzman_Muslim-American_Terrorism_Since_911_An_Accounting.pdf">the largest single source of initial information (48 of 120 cases) involved tips from the Muslim-American community."

Last Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, Candy Crowley cited the North Carolina study and asked King, "Doesn't that tell you there is cooperation there?" King replied: "http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1103/06/sotu.01.html">No. I'm aware of a number of cases in New York where the community has not been cooperative." King cited a guy who "went to two mosques in Suffolk County in Long Island, said he wanted to engage in jihad. They said we don't do it, but never told the police. And then he went off to Afghanistan. So there's just one example. I can give others." But King has never named more than three or four such cases. In his March 6 profile, New York's Robert Kolker reported that King "http://nymag.com/news/politics/peter-king-2011-3/">refuses to name the sources who claim Muslims are uncooperative," claiming that "they're always off the record with him."

Monday on Fox News, King said his upcoming hearings would feature an American Muslim who "feels very strongly that the current Muslim leadership is not doing its job." A day later, King told the same network that when Muslims come forward to report suspicions of dangerous extremism, "they do not get the cooperation from the imams and from their leaders." He brushed off the North Carolina study, accusing its authors of "leaving out any number of terrorist financing cases which there was no support from the Muslim community on."

Through this phrase—the "Muslim community"—King has casually substituted unnamed Muslim "leaders" for Muslim citizens as representatives of American Islam. Yesterday on MSNBC, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post told King, "You have alleged that the Muslim American community has not been forthcoming in helping law enforcement officials deal with radicalization." King replied: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHzMLtc7oGY">I talk to cops and counterterrorism people on the ground all the time, and they get virtually no cooperation." Robinson accused King of assuming "that the Muslim American community, a religious minority in this country, is somehow abetting and aiding and giving shelter to this process of radicalization, when that is clearly not the truth." King shot back: "It is the truth."

Full article: http://www.slate.com/id/2287708/

Lots of follow up links within these websites which debunk King's Islamophobic fearmongering for political purposes...

http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx">The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Has Consistently And Persistently Condemned Terrorism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4217266">Top Muslim clerics issue Fatwa denouncing terror attacks on Canada and U.S

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php">Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/tam/categories/C167/">Muslim Voices Against Terrorism and Extremism


The rhetoric against Muslim Americans -- namely, that they are a suspect community, or worse, enemies of the state; their religion is uncivilized and anti-American; they are deceitful; and they aim to destroy our culture and our constitution -- are replicas of attacks against other religious minorities in the past as well as current attacks against ethnic and racial minorities.
http://www.pjalliance.org/article.aspx?ID=632&CID=5