The terror attacks in Norway occurred on foreign soil, but they have a disturbing connection to our own country and those who perpetuate fear of Islam here.
To understand the link, we need to look no further than Anders Behring Breivik’s anti-Muslim 1,500 page manifesto, which cites a number of leaders active in the Islamophobia campaign in America and uses their ideology to shape his. The New York Times did a great piece about anti-Muslim thought in the U.S. and its role in the attacks.
I’ve written before only briefly about some of the self-defined freedom-fighters in Breivik’s manifesto, so I’d like to provide a bit more information about them here.
55 citations: Robert Spencer
“Well this is the politically correct falsehood that is taught every where that Islam is a religion of peace that’s been hijacked. Islam is actually unique among the religions of the world in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system that mandates
After it came out that Spencer was cited throughout Breivik’s manifesto, NBC Nightly News did this segment about American Islamophobes, particularly Spencer:
1 reference: Pamela Geller
“This mosque is offensive, humiliating, it’s demeaning to the 3,000 innocent victims that lost their lives. Without Islam, this attack would never have happened.”
In his manifesto, Breivik commented on Geller’s good character, in addition to referencing her blog 11 times. Geller made a name for herself last summer as she led the campaign against the Park 51 Islamic Center in Manhattan. Also a leader of Stop Islamization of America (there is also a European sister organization) and a frequent FOX contributor, she is planning an anti-Muslim protest on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. She constantly claims that she is not against Muslims, only against Islam, “the ideology that inspired these jihadist attacks.” See both quotes in this video.
Though I hate giving her site more hits, you should also check out her blog Atlas Shrugs.
15 citations: Walid Shoebat
“All Islamist organizations in America should be the number one enemy—all of them.”
The Department of Justice has hired Walid Shoebat, a self-proclaimed former Muslim terrorist and Christian convert, to educate law enforcement about Islam. He is also a
frequent speaker at churches, universities, and on cable news shows. Recently, CNN exposed Shoebat as a bigot and fraud—there is no record of the terrorist attack he claims to have committed.
Shoebat’s tactic—claiming to be a former Muslim—is a smart one. If people ask him how he knows Islam is evil, he can say, ‘Trust me! I know! I was Muslim’ and leave it at that.
“Believe what the radicals are saying because it’s the radicals that matter.”
“I come from the Middle East, I was born and raised there, I walk into a grocery store in Arlington, Virginia and speak Arabic and hear what they’re saying and understand it. … So when I speak about certain things about the Middle East or the religion itself… I hope
that you would give me enough credit to know that what I’m talking about in warning what’s coming to the United States will be at least considered as someone who comes from the Middle East and understands the culture and can read the Qur’an in Arabic … as much as Osama bin Laden can.” (The grammatical errors and run-ons are Gabriel’s quote.)
The leader of a group called ACT! For America, Gabriel claims to have grown up around hostile Muslims in Lebanon, giving her that “trust me” credential as well. Also considered an ‘expert’ by the cable shows that features her, she claims that Muslims are trying to infiltrate the U.S. government. Read a major New York Times article about her here, and watch the CNN interview in which she made the above comments.
Other American Islamophobes like Frank Gaffney, David Horowitz, and Daniel Pipes were also cited by Breivik. All these anti-Muslim activists (most of whom lack any credentials to be speaking authoritatively about Islam) are not simply fringe figures, leading fringe thought groups. Thanks to FOX News’ willingness to give these people a voice, their ideas have become more mainstream in the past year particularly.
It is frightening to think that the anti-Muslim ideology that drove Breivik to attack in Norway is growing up and being nurtured right here in America.
Only Breivik is responsible for his violent actions. But people like Spencer, Geller, Shoebat, and Gabriel—those with a loud and powerful voices—cannot disregard their influence, especially when they are spewing hate and targeting a particular group. These bloggers, writers, and talking-heads want influence, want to be heard. So they cannot be surprised when someone takes their message and acts on it. Though these anti-Muslim leaders don’t advocate violence and condemned it after the Norway attacks, they don’t provide an alternative method to combat the problem of Islamic fundamentalism they see. And while they don’t condone Breivik’s methods, they sympathize with his message and mission. (Doesn’t this posture sound a lot like the one they accuse Hamas-sympathizing Muslims of?)
As Dr. Marc Sageman, a former CIA officer and forensic psychiatrist said in the New York Times article I mentioned earlier, “rhetoric is not cost-free.” We should have learned this after Gabby Giffords was shot last year, during a time in which political partisanship was at its peak in America. Let’s hope these anti-Muslim leaders change their tone and rethink their words before we find ourselves cleaning up from a similar attack in the U.S.
Tomorrow, I’ll look at the conservative media’s hypocritical response to the attacks and Breivik’s claim that he’s Christian.
Today, New York Representative Peter King held a second round of Congressional hearings concerning “Muslim radicalization in the U.S.” In an era when anti-Muslim rhetoric continues to spew unchecked from the mouths of presidential hopefuls and talking heads on cable, many others and I fear that these hearings are evidence that a new McCarthyism, one targeting Muslim-Americans, is taking root in America.
Generally, when my generation learned in school about McCarthyism in the 40s and 50s, we understood it to be a shameful period in our country’s history. Looking back now on the McCarthy hearings, (which unfairly targeted thousands of Americans, labeling them falsely as Communists,) and the general tone suspicion that permeated our political and civil environment, we recognize that American leadership was acting in response to fears that were purposefully manufactured and inflated in order to be exploited for political gain.
But at Monday night’s GOP debate, the McCarthy hearings were referenced in quite a positive light as Newt Gingrich implied that the U.S. government should subject Muslim-Americans to the same kind of scrutiny that so-called Communist sympathizers experienced decades ago:
“We did this when dealing with the Nazis, and we did this when dealing with the Communists, and it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, ‘You know, there are some generally bad people who would like to infiltrate our country, and we have gotta have the guts to say, No.’”
In this context, as fear mongering and McCarthy-style hearings seem to be coming back in vogue, the words of Edward R. Murrow are all the more important to share and remember (see below). Advocating for a return to reason and the abandonment of unnecessary fear, Murrow, a journalist, spoke out against the fear and suspicion encouraged by Sen. McCarthy and other public figures. If we substitute Rep. King’s name for Sen. McCarthy’s in the following clip, Murrow could just as easily be speaking to us, the Americans of 2011, instead of the Americans of 1954. Take a listen–let’s hope our own Murrow shows up soon.
“I remember doing a number of radio interviews [right after 9/11] saying we can’t do to the Muslims what we did to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.” (New York magazine)
These are the words of Peter King, a long-time House representative from Long Island and the head of the House Homeland Security committee. Before 9/11, he was an active supporter of his Muslim community; he even spoke and cut the ribbon at the opening ceremony of the Islamic Center of Long Island. As his quote suggests, he was concerned that post-9/11 backlash would lead to unwarranted suspicion of Muslims and unjust government actions taken against the group as a whole.
However, today King seems to be encouraging the climate of mistrust he sought to avoid ten years ago.
This morning, the House committee on Homeland Security—of which King is the head— began a hearing to examine “the Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.” King is concerned that Muslims in America are becoming more radicalized and that the Muslim community is doing little to counter that trend.
Are King’s concerns legitimate?
In one respect, yes. We have seen an increase in the attempted domestic terror plots
committed by American Muslims in the years since 9/11 (Triangle Center on Terror and Homeland Security, Figure 2). This attempted terrorism is considered a strong indicator of radicalization. (It is important to note that the number of terror attempts dropped by half, despite the fact that the attempts received more media attention.)
An increase in radicalization, however, cannot only be ascribed to members of the Muslim community. In 2010, the number of hate groups operating in the US reached its peak, topping 1,000. Some of these groups include neo-Nazis, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, Klansmen, and black separatists (Southern Poverty Law Center). “Other hate groups on the list target gays or immigrants, and some specialize in producing racist music or propaganda denying the Holocaust,” the center’s report also says.
Clearly, radicalization is not just a phenomenon we see in a small number of Muslim Americans; it is a phenomenon that has been seen among whites, blacks, Christians and others across America. As Mississippi representative Bennie Thompson, a ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee said during the hearing, radicalization is a nation-wide problem affecting Americans in all ethnic and religious groups. Because of this, he called on King to hold a hearing to address the radicalization of anti-government and white supremacist groups as well.
He, many others, and myself believe that pigeonholing one group, as King has done with this hearing, is dangerous. It not only ignores important security threats (the 1,000 hate groups I just mentioned), but it has the potential to create further radicalization among American Muslim individuals, who may feel that their government does not trust them, simply because of their religious background.
Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, who agreed to testify but didn’t agree with the specificity of the hearings, said, “If you start to make a community feel besieged, they’re just going to feel more reticent. It’s just a natural human reaction to feel like a target.” (New York Magazine)
He also recognizes the need to investigate all forms of radicalism in order to better secure our country. “If you took every Muslim in America and put them in a jail, it wouldn’t have stopped Gabby Giffords from being shot. It wouldn’t have saved the people in Oklahoma City. It wouldn’t have saved the guard at the Holocaust Museum. It wouldn’t have saved the students at Columbine or Virginia Tech. To me, it’s like he’s saying we’re going to deal with drugs, but we’re only going to deal with black drug dealers.” (New York Magazine)
Even the title of the hearing itself is problematic, because it places the emphasis on the Muslim “community,” not on individuals. This title only increases the perception that the US government is at war with Islam, and as Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative has expressed, this perception has the potential to increase radicalization of Muslims abroad.
Now I’ll turn to King’s second concern: that the American Muslim community has not done enough to prevent radicalization and stop violence.
This claim, however, has been refuted by the Justice community and specifically by Attorney General Eric Holder, who asserts that the Muslim community has been highly helpful in providing tips that have resulted in the disruption of terror plots. (CBS)
According to the same Triangle Center study, fellow Muslims were most often those who provided initial information to law enforcement about Muslim American terror plots since 9/11 (48 out of 120 cases).
Though King disagrees, he has not produced any sources to support his claim that Muslims are uncooperative. (New York Magazine)
I also take issue with part of King’s list of witnesses. He was right to ask Muslim representative Ellison to testify, yet he failed to invite the other Muslim representative, Andre Carson (who represents my district in Indiana.) No federal law enforcement officials were present; only a sheriff from Los Angeles was. Thankfully, John Dingell, who represents Dearborn, Michigan, a city with a large Muslim population, was invited to speak, and reminded us that we can’t let a neo-McCarthyism—focused this time on Islam instead of Communism—take root.
I was also disappointed to see that mainstream Muslim leaders like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (of the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement) and Imam Mohamed Magid (of the Islamic Society of North America—located outside Indianapolis!) were not asked to testify. Only Zudhi Jasser (of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy), who was unknown to me until the hearings, was present.
Aside from Ellison and Dingell, it seems that the witnesses were brought in to back King’s own misguided positions, not to provide the full range of discourse needed.
It is hard to take King or this hearing seriously, not only because his list of witnesses, but also because of previous statements he’s made about American Muslims and his support of the Irish terrorist group, the IRA.
In 2004, King supported the claim that 80% of mosques in American were run by radical imams, and in 2007, he said that America had “too many mosques.” The first statement is clearly unsubstantiated, false, and ultimately offensive to American Muslims and their supporters like me. And his second statement questions Muslims’ First Amendment rights to express their religion by building places of worship.
King is strongly opposed to Islamic terrorism, yet he staunchly supported the IRA, a violent terrorist group that operated in Northern Ireland. Tom Parker, a counterterrorism expert at Amnesty International, expresses my thoughts well: “My problem is with the hypocrisy. If you say that terrorist violence is acceptable in one setting because you happen to agree with the cause, then you lose the authority to condemn it in another setting.” (Washington Post)
Why King decided to hold this hearing in unclear to me. The reasons he cites are, as I hope I’ve shown, incomplete and misinformed. While I do not have any definite answers, I fear politics may play a part. As the Park 51 Center made headlines last summer in anticipation of the midterm elections, this hearing is making the news as talk of the 2012 elections begins. The American Muslim community became a political pawn last summer, and I fear that the same will happen in the future, because of this hearing. Sadly, the climate of fear of Muslims, created and sustained by politicians and the news media, can be easily exploited for political gain.
Through today’s hearing, King hoped to increase America’s security and protect its values. However, I’m afraid the hearing chipped away at both, just as anti-Japanese policy did 70 years ago. We cannot let the Muslim Americans of the 2000s become the Japanese Americans of the 1940s.
I don’t think it is overly dramatic to say that this hearing could be the first step down a dangerous and bigoted path that our country has unfortunately walked before.
Many people might counter me, saying, “That could never happen again. Today is different. We are more tolerant now.”
The following commentary, written by Arab-American comedian Dean Obeidallah, asks us to think about how our reactions to the recent Tucson shootings might have been different if the perpetrator were Muslim.
New York City (CNN) —“When the news first broke that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords had been shot at a political event, all Americans were united in our response of shock and outrage.
Shortly afterward, the media reported that a 22-year-old male had been arrested in the shooting. His name had not yet been released. I believe your reaction to that piece of news depended greatly on your status in American society — namely, whether you’re a Muslim.
If you are a typical white person, I would imagine your initial response was relief the suspect was caught, and an attempt to make sense of why he committed this horrible crime.
But if you are Muslim or of Arab heritage, your reaction to the news of the arrest was likely: “Please don’t let him be Arab … please don’t let him be Muslim.” Believe me, that was my reaction.
This reaction in not unique to American Arabs and Muslims — most minorities in America have a similar response when a horrific crime has been committed and the identity of the suspect is still unknown.
We desperately don’t want the person to be one of “us,” for fear that our entire minority group will suffer a backlash.
I doubt any white people hope a suspect isn’t one of them — it’s just not relevant. They don’t suffer as a group because of the actions of a few bad white people such as Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph.
Americans are trying to figure out why someone committed this heinous act. Was it because he was ostracized by society, or because his parents didn’t hug him enough?
But let’s be brutally honest. If the suspect’s name wasn’t Jared but was Jamil or Mahmud instead, America’s reaction might have been different. What if a Muslim-American had made anti-government statements and shot a U.S. congresswoman at a political event?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this week called the suspect Jared Loughner an “extremist” — but not a terrorist. Would Clinton and others be so hesitant to apply the terrorist label to an American Muslim or Arab-American?
By the way, what is Loughner’s religion? It’s not part of the news coverage, but we certainly know he isn’t Muslim. If he were, the media, elected officials and law enforcement would be discussing that issue extensively. When a terrible crime in America is committed by a non-Muslim, the suspect’s religion is simply not relevant.
In contrast, after Nidal Hasan, a Muslim-American, committed the despicable Fort Hood shootings, many called for him to be labeled a terrorist, including Rep. Peter King, R-New York.
Indeed, in King’s op-ed in December 2010, he labeled Hasan a “home-grown terrorist” and a big part of the reason his Homeland Security Committee will investigate “the radicalization of Muslims in America.” It’s unknown whether King has any interest in investigating non-Muslim threats to America, such as the ones that led to the attack on Giffords.
Yes, I know Nidal yelled “Allah Akbar” at the time of the shooting, but does that mean he had a political agenda or was he just a delusional, sick person no different from Jared? When you compare the psychological profiles the media has painted of both, they are very similar: “Outsiders,” “troubled,” “loner.” Even their photos share the same crazed look in their eyes, but because one American is Muslim and the other isn’t, the presumption of terrorism differs.
Why can’t a Muslim-American be considered a crazed lone gunman? I’m not a psychiatrist, but I doubt mental illness distinguishes between religions.
And why is that every time a white American commits a horrible act — be it flying a plane into an IRS building or attacking a Muslim cab driver in New York City because he is opposed the proposed Islamic cultural center near ground zero — the presumption is that he is not a terrorist, just a poor delusional guy who has lost his mind.
My point is not to divide us as a nation any further — we are polarized enough by angry politics, race and, sadly, religion. But as we look for ways to heal our nation, which desperately needs it, applying the same standards to all Americans would be a great step.
If a Muslim-American is a terrorist under U.S. law, I have no problem applying that label, if the same goes for a non-Muslim.
As our Declaration of Independence famously states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …” and I believe they should be treated that way as well.”