Muslim Love of Lying
Islamists Respond to Terror Cases with Denial
By Sid Shahid
American Thinker
March 14, 2010
As homegrown terrorism grabbed headlines at the end of 2009, Islamist
pressure groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR),
Muslim American Society (MAS), and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
felt the need to look as if they were responding forcefully. However,
all they offered was spin and denial of the very radicalism that they
themselves have helped breed.
First we witnessed the typical smokescreen that attempts to paint
Muslims as victims. For example, in a November 6 press release
commenting on the Fort Hood massacre, Mahdi Bray of the MAS Freedom
Foundation strongly condemned the actions of Major Nidal Hasan, but
quickly segued into warnings about an anti-Muslim backlash: "Let us be
cautious, however, in drawing conclusions based on the ethnicity of the
perpetrator of this tragic incident. ... The perpetuation of negativity
in such instances often unwittingly serves as an equally unnecessary
exacerbation of the atmosphere of hate, violence, and Islamophobia
under which the Muslim community already exists."
Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director of CAIR, played a
victim card of his own on November 15. Participating in a discussion on
TV One's "Washington Watch," Hooper asked, "Why can't the killer at
Fort Hood just be a crazy guy? Don't take it out on American Muslims
because you're upset about another issue." He then claimed that CAIR
had received death threats since the shooting. "Are those terrorist
threats or is it only a terrorist threat if a Muslim does it?" he
added.
More obfuscation followed the terror-related arrests of five Virginia
Muslim men in Pakistan, as self-appointed Islamic spokesmen could not
bring themselves to acknowledge fully the roots of radicalization
taking place among America's Muslims. For example, at a December 9
press conference about the detentions, Nihad Awad, executive director
of CAIR, did grant that a "problem" exists in the Muslim community, yet
he remained in complete denial about its source: political Islam
(Islamism). Particularly illuminating is Awad's statement that there
are no "similarities or connection," ideological or otherwise, between
the disappearance of the jihadist Somali youths from Minneapolis and
the jihadist young men from Virginia. He was succeeded at the podium by
MPAC's Haris Tarin, who did little more than pay lip service to the
"problem" by calling for better Muslim community relations with law
enforcement.
The Islamist stage show continued two days later. Speaking to reporters
at the mosque that the young men attended, Mahdi Bray proclaimed: "We
are determined not to let religious extremists exploit the
vulnerability of our young children through slick propaganda on the
Internet. We are sending a message loud and clear that those days are
over when we don't respond. We are going to be active, proactive."
However, Bray's denial -- or intentional avoidance -- of Islamism was
most evident when, according to AFP, he "acknowledged that the emotions
of young Muslims were stirred by 'injustices' they see unfolding in
places like Iraq and Afghanistan."
Then, on December 17, barely more than a week after admitting to a
vague radicalization "problem," CAIR opened up the victimology playbook
once more with an e-mail blast excerpting, among other things, a
Salon.com article from December 14 entitled "The Allegedly Growing
Domestic Muslim Threat." The piece sarcastically minimizes the danger
of radical Islam to the U.S. and instead pins the blame on American
foreign policy in the Middle East.
As expected, none of these so-called leaders addressed Islamism as a
real and thriving movement or recognized the fuel of anti-Americanism
that perpetuates it. How could they? If they did, they would have to
concede their own complicity in its spread. So they dissimulate.
Without addressing political Islam, anti-radicalization efforts like
the one announced by CAIR at the December 9 press conference are mere
public relations ploys. Worse, declaring that problems within
Muslim-majority countries are the sole result of American policies is
not only factually inaccurate, but dangerous. It should be no surprise
that when such unqualified anti-Americanism is fomented by Islamists
with deep pockets, some community members like Nidal Hasan crack under
the pressure.
The contrast between the above groups and truly moderate Muslims was
especially pronounced in the wake of the Fort Hood massacre. Moderates
such as Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American
Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), were out front on the fact that
Hasan's actions had been motivated by his Islamist ideology. Jasser and
other leading anti-Islamists consistently were featured on CNN, Fox,
MSNBC, and elsewhere, calling Hasan what he is: a radical
Islamist.
Real anti-radicalization efforts from the Muslim community require a
balanced perspective that integrates our faith with our American
citizenship. One can debate U.S. foreign policy, human rights abuses
abroad, and democracy-promotion without poisoning the minds of Muslims
and creating a childish and artificial barrier that separates them from
the Western world -- thus forcing men like Nidal Hasan to choose
between being a proud American and a proud Muslim.
Of course, CAIR, MAS, and MPAC are not likely to change. That is why
the time has come for true American Muslims -- along with politicians
and the mainstream media -- to stop promoting and legitimizing Islamist
groups in the United States as "Muslim civil rights organizations."
They are anything but.
Sid Shahid is the director of research and publications for the
American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). He can be reached at
sid@aifdemocracy.org. This article was sponsored by Islamist Watch, a
project of the Middle East Forum.