Rep. Peter King Hearing on Radical Islam 2

“When we look at the problem of radicalization, the excuses will never run out,” Dr. Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy said. “It seems to me that Americans are sitting around doing nothing to combat extremists.” Dr. Jasser said this at the March 10, 2011 hearings by Rep. Peter King. There is another article I invite you to read:

http://townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/2011/03/11/meet_a_true_muslim_patriot

Jasser stressed the need to combat radicalism, saying the issue is a moral one that Muslims must take on and fix. He added that violence is the last step in radicalization and that American Muslims are failing to address, observe and report those they see taking steps toward radicalization in a productive, proactive way that provides solutions moving forward. Jasser compared radicalism in Islam to a cancer, and said if American Muslims are going to fix the problem, they have to be able to talk about it openly and attack it from all angles. When asked about his view on CAIR, Jasser said the organization promotes a victim mentality rather than a corporative attitude within the American Muslim community. 

“We have a problem internally,” Jasser said. “We must awaken the silent Muslim majority.”

Melvin Bledsoe, father of Carlos Leon Bledsoe of Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the man convicted of killing U.S. Army Private William Long and wounding Private Quinton Ezeagwula outside of a military recruitment center in Little Rock, Arkansas after going through the radicalization process, had a similar message to Jasser.

Bledsoe gave a detailed description of his son’s decline into radical-Islam, adding that political correctness will not stop radical extremists from countries like Yemen and terrorist organizations from recruiting vulnerable young men in America.

“This hearing today is extremely important,” Bledsoe said. “I sincerely hope this committee can address the issue in a productive way.”

Some critics have already brought forth predictable historical analogies. I would point out that historical events are, by their nature, unique and unrepeatable. Drawing analogies with such events to the present setting is a risky business. 

1) Holding hearings into Islamic "radicalization" is not an exercise in "McCarthyism," as widely and deeply misunderstood. I would invite you to read M. Stanton Evans' 2007 investigative masterpiece "Blacklisted by History." We toss around the word "McCarthyism" with little understanding of it actually was. I am no apologist for him or his approach. However, as historians, both liberal conservative, examine the Soviet archives, it is quite clear that Soviet Communism had its supporters in various branches of the federal government in the 1950's. The proper analogy, it seems to me, is that there is, clearly, a path toward radicalization of a Muslim that it would do well for Americans of all type, but especially Muslims, to become aware. 

2) Holding hearings into Islamic "radicalization" is not akin to Japanese internment during World War II -- another widely and deeply misunderstood phenomenon.

Diana West points out that evidence of extensive Tokyo-directed espionage networks within the Japanese community on the West Coast was largely shoved aside, evidence revealed to FDR and his senior advisers through the MAGIC project, the top-secret decryption of some 5,000 Japanese diplomatic cables. Again, the proper analogy was that in a time of war, FDR acted upon evidence, and not racism. Again, I do not defend what FDR did in isolating Japanese Americans, as does Michelle Malkin in her book In Defense of Internment. I think there were other ways of dealing with the evidence. However, to accuse him of acting upon racism is, in my view, contrary to the evidence. 

My point is that in both historical analogies, what we need to learn on the positive side is that there are enemies to America within our borders and that we need to be vigilant. The negative lesson to learn is that government always runs the risk of over-reaching, so to speak. Thus, we as citizens also need to be vigilant to be sure that does not happen. Yet, we do not help our case by closing our eyes to the quite real issue to which Dr. Jasser points us: there is a process of radicalization of which we need to be aware and stop.

Rep. Peter King Hearing on Radical Islam

Rep. Peter King is holding March 10 hearings before his Committee on Homeland Security entitled "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response." About 1000 protesters against these hearings showed up at Times Square. Some protesters called it a witch-hunt. National Council of Churches chief Michael Kinnamon joined other clergy of the political Left at the rally. Kinnamon warned that Americans are “in danger of succumbing to a bigotry that will scar our generation in the same way that bigotry scarred those who came before us.”  He then referred to European conquest of the Americas, slavery, and the WWII internment of Japanese-Americans. It has become part of the myth developed by the Left that Muslims in America are the new oppressed minority. “No matter what Rep. King may say, his hearings convey the implicit message that Muslims aren’t part of ‘us’—and to this sort of bigotry, all citizens of conscience must say NO!” He then said, “On behalf of the fifty million members of our churches, I declare as loudly as possible that whenever Muslims are threatened or demeaned, so are we—because ‘Today we are Muslims, too!’” Actually, the membership is 35 million, but who is counting. 


The term "witch hunt" is used to disparage people who believe there are terrorists and potential terrorists hiding among us. We know there are no witches, so the implication is that there are no terrorists living within the American Muslim community. Events dating back long before September 11, 2001 prove there are.


Cal Thomas (March 10, 2011) identifies several of the witnesses. It includes Abdirizak Bihi and Melvin Bledsoe, whom one can do an Internet search for why they are witnesses. Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat and one of two Muslim members of Congress, is a scheduled witness, as is Rep. Frank Wolf, Virginia Republican. Ellison will no doubt warn us against stereotyping all Muslims because of the actions of "a few." But what if those "few" (and it doesn't take many to kill, as we have seen) are hiding among peaceful Muslims? Although not yet called, he identifies some other interesting witnesses Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and Bernard Lewis. 


In these hearings, and in dealing with the radicalization problem in general, do we fully understand that radical Muslims believe their religion allows them to lie to "infidels" and to advance their cause of creating a world Islamic caliphate? Shouldn't that make us wary of their testimony?


Is any investigation of radical Islam acceptable to those on the religious Left?  Kinnamon says the King investigation should be expanded to all extremism. Must there be the ongoing pretense that “extreme” American Methodists or Lutherans are just as likely to host terror cells?  Further, can I not assume that most American Muslims want violent radicalism exposed and expunged from among them?


Thomas points out that one of the quite real issues will be that if there are specific findings, will the government take adequate steps to protect Americans from further Islamist attacks. Alternatively, will fear of the accusation of of Islamophobia keep this administration from acting, even if the hearings expose legitimate concerns?