http://www.investigativeproject.org/3634/little-movement-in-latest-radicalization-hearing
The fifth House Homeland Security Committee hearing
on radicalization within the Muslim community ended Wednesday much as
last year's inaugural hearing began: With committee Democrats
criticizing the premise and diminishing the views of witnesses.
The hearing, "The American Muslim Response
to Hearings on Radicalization within their Community," featured three
Muslim American activists describing their first-hand experiences
identifying and challenging extremist viewpoints and visceral reaction
that often generates.
Those accounts were largely dismissed,
however, as representatives stuck to talking points about the horrible
harm they saw being caused by the very discussion. Ranking Democrat
Bennie Thompson of Mississippi worried
the hearings helped "provide a Congressional stamp of approval for
groups that espouse anti-Muslim beliefs" and fuel anti-Muslim hate
crimes.
None of the critics offered an example of any crime which was in any way connected to the congressional hearings.
Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., invoked the Japanese internment camps during World War II.
That left Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y.,
frustrated. He cited a statement by Attorney General Eric Holder that
there was a crisis of radicalization to violence within the
Muslim-American community. Past testimony showed "[t]he threat posed by
radicalized Muslim-Americans is a clear and present danger to homeland
security," he said in his prepared remarks.
Widely accessible videos and books in prison libraries fuel the
radicalization, he noted. And classified information shows a growing
problem of Islamist extremism within U.S. military ranks has reached a
"truly eye-popping amount of ongoing cases."
Yet, the discussion remained blocked by partisanship.
That's by design, witnesses said.
"If you label anybody that addresses this
[as] an Islamophobe or a bigot, it stifles free speech," said Zuhdi
Jasser, founder of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy and a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. "It prevents us from dealing with the very issue that we need to."
He said he hoped the hearings could serve
as "a dialogue to bridge between those who see no problem in the Muslim
community and those who see all Muslims as a problem."
For all the talk of fueling anti-Muslim
sentiment, the hearings provide a chance to explain the distinction
between the faith of Islam and the politics of Islamism, said Qanta Ahmed, a writer and physician who treats 9/11 first responders.
One is a faith, she said. The other is
political ideology. For all the rhetoric, nothing debated in the
radicalization hearings has crimped her ability to practice her
religion. "I am more free to worship here than in any Muslim majority
nation," she said. "Our rights are not at risk. That gets lost in the
debate."
King echoed that, saying "none of the
nightmare scenarios anticipated by the media ever occurred. No religious
war broke out. Not one bigoted word was uttered during the four
investigative hearings we held."
There is a cultural element in play, said former Wall Street Journal reporter Asra Nomani.
Many Muslims have become what she called "wound collectors," citing a
phrase created by an FBI agent. They cling to ancient grievances, dating
back to the Crusades, and quickly turn defensive and in denial to any
outside criticism.
The Quran calls on people to stand for
justice, she said, even if it's within your own community. That's often
easier said than done, and for Muslims like herself it creates "a
culture clash where you can't talk to each other."
National Islamist organizations like the
Council on American-Islamic Relations tracked the hearing with chapter
leaders posting a stream of criticism on Twitter. "No such thing as
Islamism," Michigan Director Dawud Walid claimed. "Is there Christianism
or Jewishism?"
The term is not an invention by non-Muslims, though. The Muslim Brotherhood uses it, and this website is devoted to it.
In the inaugural hearing last year, California Democrat Jackie Speier denigrated
the panelists' experiences, calling them anecdotes that offered little
from which to learn. Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Calif., picked up that
theme Wednesday, comparing the witness testimony to an episode of
"Oprah."
Future hearings need more authoritative
witnesses, she said, or else it's "similar to a community town hall that
does not rise to the level of U.S. Congress."
King angrily rebutted that, noting the committee often presents classified briefings to its members.
Faiza Patel, co-director of New York University Law School's Liberty and National Security Program, stressed
her view that signs of stricter religious practices among Muslims were
not signs of a trend toward violent radicalization. She rejected the
notion offered by some in law enforcement of a "conveyor belt" of
radicalization, saying it does nothing to help identify those with
potential to engage in terrorism.
"If there isn't a conveyor belt I guess terrorists self-combust immediately," Jasser responded. Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hassan "did not radicalize overnight."
King challenged Patel, too, noting prepared
testimony from the Department of Homeland Security which acknowledged
that "the greatest terrorist risk from those extremists who have either
been recruited by Al-Qa'ida or its affiliates or inspired by their
ideology. This threat is real" and played out in both a successful
attack on Fort Hood and an attempted follow-up.
Those doing the recruiting and those being
targeted are Muslims, King said. "Somehow to suggest that there is not a
correlation between terrorist threats and people of the Muslim faith –
no matter how small a minority that might be – I think that's totally
erroneous.
Terrorism in the name of Islam is a threat,
Patel acknowledged, and it's okay for Congress to study that. In her
view, however, that is not being done based on empirical evidence.
It has been a factor for terrorists in
previous cases, but "[a]ll of that research shows that the idea of
religious conveyor belt that leads a person directly from embracing a
religion to becoming a radical to becoming a terrorist simply does not
serve as a way to predict violence."
Earlier, King noted the media criticism
stirred up by the hearings and their focus on Muslim radicalization. But
after a successful attack, he said, news outlets demand explanations
about what went wrong. After the first World Trade Center bombing in
1993, the New York Times criticized authorities for failing to
investigate "mysterious Muslims" operating out of New Jersey led by
Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman.
Now the newspaper is among media outlets critical of the New York Police Department's use of public surveillance in an attempt to identify potential pockets of radicalization.
"Closer monitoring of the sheik may not necessarily have prevented the bombing," the Times
wrote in 1993. "But it might have. …If incidents like the trade center
bombing can't be completely prevented, they can and should be made
extremely rare."
That, King said, exactly is what this committee has been trying to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment