The Reality of Islamophobia in America

By Corey Saylor

Thirty-seven groups dedicated to spreading anti-Islam prejudice in America enjoyed access to at least $119,662,719 in total revenue between 2008 and 2011, according to a new report by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

These groups often deny that Islamophobia exists in our nation. CAIR’s research finds a darker reality.

Islamophobia in America has resulted in a certain willingness to undermine the Constitution.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any “religious test” for public office. However, in 2010 Time reported that “twenty-eight percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court” and that “nearly one-third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President.” Herman Cain, at one point the frontrunner for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, manifested a version of this sentiment when he said that to serve in his administration he would require loyalty oaths from Muslims. Cain said he would not require similar oaths from Mormons or Catholics “because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions.”

In 2010 Oklahoma voters approved SQ 755, a state constitutional amendment banning judges in that state from considering Islamic religious principles in their rulings. In practice this would have prohibited a judge from probating an Islamic will. In the voting booth, Oklahomans were told that Islamic religious principles are “based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.” The First Amendment clearly prohibits any such government interference in the free exercise of a religion. For this reason a CAIR staff person in Oklahoma challenged the law in court. In 2013 a Federal judge struck the amendment down as un-Constitutional.

Oklahoma’s bill was not unique. In 2011 and 2012, 78 bills or amendments designed to vilify Islamic religious practices were introduced in the legislatures of 29 states and the U.S. Congress. Seventy-three of the bills were introduced solely by Republicans. In at least 11 states, mainstream Republican leaders introduced or supported anti-Muslim legislation. While the bias behind the bills is clear, the presence of an actual problem that needed solved was not, even to the legislators introducing the measures. As CAIR’s report shows, time and again when asked to provide examples of Islamic religious principles trumping U.S. law legislators failed to do so.

Sixty-two of these bills contained language that was extracted from David Yerushalmi’s American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model legislation. Yeushalmi believes “Our greatest enemy today is Islam.” He has also asserted, "There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote” and says he finds truth in the view that Jews destroy their host nations like a fatal parasite. Yerushalmi is an odd voice to be granted legitimacy in so many legislatures.

Anti-Islam bills are now law in seven states.

There are other indicators that Islamophobia is a societal issue in America.

A survey released by Gallup in August 2011 found that “at 48%, Muslim Americans are by far the most likely of major faith groups surveyed to say they have personally experienced racial or religious discrimination in the past year.” In September 2011, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) noted, “Forty seven percent of Americans agree that Islam is at odds with American values, and 48 percent disagree.” PRRI later reported that the number of Americans who feel Muslims are working to subvert the Constitution rose from 23 percent in February 2012 to 30 percent in September 2012. 

According to a study released by Ohio State University in July 2011, in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden researchers found that Americans, particularly “political liberals and moderates” found Muslims more threatening and positive perceptions of Muslims significantly declined.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in 2011 cases filed on the basis of “Religion-Muslim” accounted for 21 percent of the total religion charges. In 2011, the most recent year for which the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has released statistics, there were 157 anti-Muslim hate crimes. The agency reported 107 anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2009 and 160 in 2010.

According to CAIR, there were 51 recorded anti-mosque acts in 2011 and 2012. These included facilities in Joplin, Mo. and Toledo, Ohio sustaining catastrophic damage as a result of arson. David Conrad fired an air rifle, nearly hitting one worshipper, at a mosque in Morton Grove, Ill. A bottle filled with acid was thrown at a mosque in Lombard, Ill. A man living next to a mosque in Amherst, N.Y. posted a sign on his property reading, “Bomb Making Next Driveway.” During a hearing for a proposed mosque in Plymouth, Minn. individuals opposed to the project asserted, "aiding the enemy is treason," and "this is an ideology that wants to destroy."

Two notable spikes in anti-mosque acts occurred in 2011-2012: May 2011 (7 acts), likely related to the killing of Osama bin Laden and August 2012 (10 acts), probably all in reaction to the massacre of six Sikh worshippers by a white supremacist in Oak Creek, Wis.

Islamophobic rhetoric remains socially acceptable. Research released in 2011 found, “citizens are quite comfortable not only opposing [extending citizenship to legal Muslim immigrants], but also being public about that fact.” A number of mainstream candidates for the Republican presidential nomination used Islamophobic rhetoric, as represented by the Herman Cain quote offered earlier. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) held a series of five anti-Muslim congressional hearings, which were subjected to broad spectrum push back but also enjoyed significant support. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) partnered with key U.S. Islamophobia network leader Frank Gaffney to launch a campaign accusing Muslims in public service of infiltrating the government on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. In reaction to this last episode many public officials spoke out in a bipartisan show of support for Americans of the Islamic faith.

All of this presents a sober picture, but one that is more realistic than simplistic talking points designed to deny Islamophobia exists in America.

All, however, is not bleak. Subject matter experts surveyed by CAIR perceive a small, but highly welcome, decline in Islamophobia in America during 2011 and 2012. This makes sense given that the last time CAIR conducted this survey was during the 2010 national controversy over Park 51, a proposed Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan that was misleadingly dubbed the “ground zero mosque.” That controversy’s proximity to the mid-term election and international news surrounding a Florida pastor’s planning 9/11 “International Burn a Koran Day” resulted in what is likely the U.S. Islamophobia network’s biggest moment in the spotlight.

All this points to an interesting moment for Islam in America. The faith is certainly subject to much suspicion. This suspicion is often latent, but certain incidents can bring it to the forefront. On the other hand, nothing leads me to believe this opinion has solidified.

After the tragic bombings in Boston, Pew found that while Americans perceive Muslims as more discriminated against than other groups—gays, Hispanics and African Americans—young people do not believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence.

Denial of a problem is not a solution. A sober assessment is a good beginning. Like racism, anti-Semitism, sexism and other issues, Islamophobia exists. Based on the positive news above it need not be seen as a malignant issue, but rather one that can be resolved.

Becoming the Trustworthy: Upholding Our Constitution, Defending Our Faith

(Speech given at CAIR-San Diego on November 10, 2012.)

Salaam alaykum. Peace be unto you. Good evening.

Before we begin our discussion, I want to offer some good news.

The day before the 2012 presidential election there were 11 members of Congress routinely making use of anti-Muslim themes. (The full report on the electoral fate of the anti-Muslim caucus can be seen here.)

Four of them will not be returning to Congress in January.

Florida’s Allen West, who claims Islam is not a religion and asserts that Muslims are a “fifth column,” lost his race. Be assured that Muslims played a role in bringing about that electoral defeat.

Similarly, Illinois’s Joe Walsh, who cast suspicion on all Muslims, and Minnesota’s Chip Cravaack, who asserted that a mainstream Muslim organization was a terrorist group, lost their races.

Finally, Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina retired. A few years ago she held a press conference where she alleged that Muslim interns on Capitol Hill were spies. You may also recall her 2003 warning about a previously unnoticed security threat because, "You know, look at who runs all the convenience stores across the country. Every little town you go into, you know?”

I have one other item of good news. Islam’s favorability rating, last time it was polled in 2010, stood at 30 percent according to Pew Research Center.

As of August, 2012 Congress’s favorability rating is 10 percent.

We are still more popular than Congress.

Upholding the Constitution

 

We here tonight are among those who are on the front lines of protecting the Constitution from people who, selling anti-Muslim stereotypes and fear, seek to return America to a legal system that treats one group of Americans as different from others.

 

Worse, if you pay attention to Islamophobes like Pamela Geller or David Yerushalmi, there are those who appear to seek the rebirth of South African apartheid with religion as its new targeted class.

Indulge me, please, while I offer proof of what I just said.

Anti-Islam Legislation

First, we will look at efforts to legislate government-sanctioned discrimination against Muslims.

 

In 2011 and 2012, 78 bills or amendments aimed at interfering with Islamic religious practices were considered in 31 states and the U.S. Congress.

 

Sixty-two of these bills contained language that was extracted from Islamophobe David Yerushalmi’s American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) model legislation.

 

(As an aside: An internet search of “David Yerushalmi” returns results demonstrating his call for a “WAR AGAINST ISLAM and all the Muslim faithful.” You will also see his anti-woman, anti-black and similarly biased comments on the first results page. It is reasonable to be alarmed that a man so central to that anti-Islam hate movement in the United States is able to have real impact on legislators.)

 

73 of these bills were introduced solely by Republicans. Not just fringe legislators, but in too many cases this included state-level GOP party leadership.

 

Bills were signed into law in Arizona, Kansas, South Dakota, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Louisiana.

 

I want you to be clear that this anti-Sharia movement is really a cover for Islamophobic sentiment.

 

In Tennessee, the original bill’s definition of “Sharia” was, in practical terms, the entire religious tradition of Islam.  It stated that “Sharia” encompasses all content derived from “any of the authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Ja’afariya, or Salafi.”

They wanted to make being a Muslim illegal in Tennessee.

South Dakota anti-Islam bill sponsor Phil Jensen (R-District 33) told an audience, “It is alarming how many of our sisters and daughters who attend American universities are now marrying Muslim men.”

In Pennsylvania, the bill itself included no mention of Islam. However, in a memo to all House members urging them to co-sponsor the bill, Rep. Rosemarie Swanger (R-District 102) falsely claimed that Sharia is "inherently hostile to our constitutional liberties."

Later, Swanger claimed she “had no idea how [the memo] was going to be written” and that it was never circulated. Swanger also claimed that it was leaked by “someone who is not my friend.”(iv)

 Her claim strains credibility, given that the memo, with Swanger’s signature, was easily found on the Pennsylvania state legislature’s website.

 

As you may have already concluded, these legislators frequently have no idea what they are talking about.

 

The Star Assistant in Alabama reported, “But no one—not even Sen. Gerald Allen, who sponsored the bill—can point to examples of Muslims trying to have Islamic law recognized in Alabama courts.”(viii)

That inability to point to actual examples is a pattern by the way.

Allen could not even define Sharia. When asked he said, “I don’t have my file in front of me.”

When pressed about why the Alabama bill’s definition of sharia matched one found in Wikipedia, Allen’s legislative staff “confirmed that the definition was in fact pulled from Wikipedia.”

Now college students that I know tell me that Wikipedia is not a valid citation in their papers. I find it intriguing that it is, however, a valid source for things that may become the law of the land.

 

Texas legislator Leo Berman said his bill was necessary because he had heard, but apparently had not actually tried to confirm, that one American town was allowing judges to use sharia. “I heard it on a radio station here on my way into the Capitol one day. I don’t know Dearborn, Michigan but I heard it [Sharia law is accepted there] on the radio. Isn’t that true?”

The Kansas City Star’s Jason Noble reported that anti-Islam bill sponsors, “Missouri Reps. Paul Curtman and Don Wells agree there’s no evidence that state courts are judging cases based on Islamic principles of foreign laws.” Challenged again a month later, Curtman still could not provide an example.

 

Missouri Speaker of the House Stephen Tilley also “could not provide an example of foreign law trumping domestic law in Missouri courts,” reported Politicalmo.com. The article noted that Tilley’s office later issued a statement outlining one case in New Jersey, but that poor ruling--which in fact received no support from Muslim groups because it involved a man claiming it was his religious right to rape his wife--was rightfully overturned by a higher court.

 

The news here is fairly straightforward: Yes, they have passed anti-Islam laws in six states. Yes, they will try again in 2013. But by upholding the Constitution, we can preserve everyone’s liberty.

 

CAIR is in the forefront of asserting this principle of free religious exercise. The Constitution is the law of the land and we like it that way. We agree with people of the Jewish and Catholic faiths, who already have an established tradition of using religious mediation, that, within the law, we are free to make choices in accordance with our faith.

 

In accordance with Islam, my marriage contract required me to pay a mahr to my wife. Why anyone would be upset with a woman getting money up front that is hers to invest as she sees fit I have no clue.

 

In accordance with Islam, my home financing involves no interest. Similarly, my financial investment strategy avoids putting money into gambling, pornography and weapons manufacturing. I have no idea why anyone would think such things are a threat to American democracy.

So let’s turn back to the anti-Islam legislation.      

CAIR’s lawsuit against Oklahoma’s anti-Islam constitutional amendment asserts that the law would violate the First Amendment, which says no law can be passed that promotes or vilifies a particular religion, and the Supremacy clause, which says the Constitution is and will remain the highest law of the land. Interestingly, CAIR gets accused of trying to subvert the Constitution while we are making these arguments this constitutionally-subversive legislation.

So far, four federal judges have ruled in our favor and that law is on hold.

An appeals court ruling on the legal challenge concluded in part that arguments, “that the proposed state amendment expressly condemns [the plaintiff’s] religion and exposes him and other Muslims in Oklahoma to disfavored treatment -- suffices to establish the kind of direct injury-in-fact necessary to create Establishment Clause standing.” The ruling also notes, "Appellants [those representing the state of Oklahoma] do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures..."

 

In Minnesota, the legislator who was going to introduce an anti-Islam bill pulled the idea within hours of a CAIR-led press conference.

 

Similarly, in New Jersey a law maker withdrew an anti-Islam bill and met with Muslim community leaders following CAIR’s intervention. In other states including Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan, CAIR played a crucial role in efforts that succeeded in ending proposed limits on American religious freedom.

 

Recently, a hearing on an anti-Islam bill in Pennsylvania was cancelled after CAIR, along with Christian and Jewish partner groups, began to raise concerns about it.

Mainstream Candidates Willing to Subject Muslims to Unequal Treatment

As a second example that Muslims need to defend our faith in order to uphold the Constitution let’s look at the recent presidential election.

Herman Cain was for a while the frontrunner for the GOP’s presidential nomination.

Speaking to Christianity Today on March 11, 2011, Cain said that followers of the “Muslim religion” have “an objective to convert all infidels or kill them.”

Cain also said that Muslims who wanted to serve in his administration would have to take loyalty oaths. He explained to Fox News host Glenn Beck that he would not require similar oaths from Mormons or Catholics, “Because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions.”

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says there is no “religious test” for public office.

So, here we have a man, a frontrunner, committing to undermining the Constitution. Did he get tossed from the stage?

No.

He got applause. 

Rick Santorum, also a frontrunner for a time, endorsed religious profiling during one of the GOP presidential debates, saying, "Obviously, Muslims would be someone you'd look at." In January, 2012 journalists brought attention to a lengthy Islamophobic rant Santorum gave in 2007 at David Horowitz’s “Second Annual Academic Freedom Conference.” Santorum asserted that in order to “win” against a vaguely-defined Muslim enemy Americans must “…educate, engage, evangelize and eradicate."

A former Speaker of the U.S. House, Newt Gingrich, yet another onetime frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, told an audience that he feared that by the time his grandchildren reach his age “they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”According to Gingrich sharia is a "mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States."

The good news here? Even the Republican-party nominating process, which as we have heard in the news lately, pushes candidates too far right to win a mainstream presidential election ultimately rejected this kind of extremism. That’s good, but each man was in turn the frontrunner.

Other Attempts to Strip Muslims of Equal Treatment Under the Law

Public groups also seek to strip Muslims of equal protection under the Constitution.

According to Brian Fischer of the Islamophobic American Family Association the First Amendment does not apply to Muslims. “Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam,” Fisher wrote in a blog post.

Similar to Fischer, a lawyer opposing a mosque expansion in Murfreesboro, Tenn. argued in court that Islam is not a religion and is therefore not protected by the First Amendment. Lawyers representing the Federal government submitted a brief to the judge in that case arguing that yes, Islam actually is a religion. We appreciated that, but reasonable people find that it was even needed to be somewhat surreal.

 

The Oak Initiative, a group whose name pops up more than once in association with anti-Islam legislation, says through its mouthpiece retired Lieutenant General William G. "Jerry" Boykin, that "[Islam] should not be protected under the First Amendment" and that there should be "no mosques in America."

 

The Family Leader, an Iowa-based Christian conservative group, asked GOP presidential candidates to sign a “marriage vow” pledge that proclaimed their opposition to “Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human-rights forms of totalitarian control.”

 

In its original form, the pledge also contained troubling language regarding Africa-Americans: ‘Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.”

Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry signed the pledge.

Rep. Peter King’s Anti-Muslim Hearings

As a final example, I will point to a use of one of our nation’s highest public forums--the halls of the U.S. Congress--as a place to justify different treatment of Muslims.

 

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) held a series of five anti-Muslim hearings in Congress in 2011 and 2012.

For seven years prior to the first hearing, King had maintained that “80%, 85% of the mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists" and that average Muslims "are loyal," but "don't come forward, they don't tell the police what they know. They won't turn in their own.”

Throughout the hearings, CAIR was among those in the forefront of exposing King’s record of anti-Muslim statements and false allegations against our community.

King spent a lot of the first hearing attacking CAIR, which tells me we were doing a good job. They do not attack you when you are not relevant.

Afterward, CAIR produced the only comprehensive study of the first four hearings and exposed the truth: after eight years, four hearings and 18 witnesses, King failed to produce the promised evidence to support his stigmatization of America’s Muslims.

Not a single witness attempted to factually validate the allegation of a Muslim community run by extremists.  Five of the six law enforcement representatives who testified did not support King’s assertion that Muslims do not cooperate with law enforcement. Instead, these witnesses described “strong relationships” with Somali Muslims, “strong bonds” with the American Muslim community and “outreach and engagement with Muslim communities.”

The Targeting of Islamic Places of Worship

Sadly, in a move that mirrors past efforts targeting African-American churches with acts of intimidation, our places of worship have become targets of hate.

 

Ramadan 2012—which started on Friday, July 20 and ended at sun down on Saturday, August 18—saw one of the worst spikes of anti-Muslim incidents in over a decade.

 

In the first seven months of 2012, there were 10 incidents in which Muslim places of worship were targeted. In thirteen days in August, the days immediately after theshocking murders of Sikh worshippers in Wisconsin, there were 8 incidents inwhich Muslim places of worship were targeted.

Incidents in Illinois included shots fired at a mosque in Morton Grove and an acid bomb thrown at an Islamic school in Lombard. In other states, a mosque was burned to the ground in Joplin, Mo., vandals sprayed an Oklahoma mosque with paintballs, pigs legs were thrown at a mosque-site in California, and a firebomb was thrown at a Muslim family's home in Panama City, Fla.

 In August, a CAIR team went on a national tour to support communities targeted by hatred and bigotry. First, they traveled to Joplin to meet with law enforcement officials and community leaders about the fire that destroyed the mosque. Then they were in Murfreesboro, Tenn., for the opening of a mosque that has been targeted for years by a campaign of Islamophobia. Finally, CAIR staffers went to Wisconsin to meet with Muslim community leaders and to pay a condolence visit to the Milwaukee-area Sikh temple that was targeted in a white supremacist's killing spree.

Optimism Can Reign Supreme

Threats to equal treatment are not new to America.

 

In fact, the Constitution as originally enacted treated black people as three-fifths of a human being and left them as property. Women were denied the seemingly basic equal treatment of getting to cast a vote in a presidential election until 1920. Those insults to humanitarian principle were rectified.

 

Even after slavery was ended, African-Americans were subjected to horrible treatment and discriminatory laws.

 

They did not hide.

 

Rev. Martin Luther King was wire-tapped by federal authorities. In an FBI memo, he was called the “most dangerous and effective negro leader in America.” J. Edgar Hoover called him a “degenerate.”

Today, they get King’s birthday off as a Federal Holiday.

 

I look to Japanese Americans as a prime inspiration and source of hope. Like Muslims, as a group they were blamed for an attack on this country. They were placed in internment camps. We likely have them to thank as the reason we were not similarly treated. They were vocal. They organized and after forty years of their hard work, the government acknowledged that what was done to them was wrong.

 

In fact, we inherit a rich tradition of standing up for an America that is based on a level playing field. Catholics were discriminated against. Jews were discriminated against. Mormons have been discriminated against. Each in turn has pushed back.

Today, it is our turn to push back.

I guarantee you that bias and efforts to treat someone as an enemy other will shift. We must push back to honor those before us and to ensure that the next targeted group does not say, “The Muslims failed us.”

 

The Trustworthy

A final thought. Before he became a prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was known as Al-Ameen, the Trustworthy. He did not lie. He kept his word.

 

We as Muslims must consider this. Most Americans were introduced to our faith on 9/11 watching an airplanes slam into buildings. That was followed by repeated media images of crazy men in caves threatening Americans with a violent, brutal death.

 

We in this room know that such monstrosities are heretical. They are incompatible with any understanding of Islam. We know Islam compels us to be trustworthy.

 

But I wonder how many of our neighbors retain that image of planes and crazy in their deeper emotional places and are unsure if we are trustworthy. They may harbor, even unwanted, a concern that maybe the bigots who claim Muslims are an existential threat to America are right.

 

We must, each as an individual and in partnership with institutions like CAIR, strive to become known in America as the Trustworthy. We do that by upholding the Constitution for everyone. We do that by being a benefit to them and preventing harm from coming to them.

 

I know you are committed to this idea. I pray you will join us putting faith into action.

Thank you.

Muslim Rights Group: Bachmann Playing 'Six Degrees of Separation Drinking Game' with National Security

Muslim Rights Group: Bachmann Playing 'Six Degrees of Separation Drinking Game' with National Security

A Muslim human rights group has issued a strong response to the allegations from House Republican members that longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s family, as well as other prominent Muslim-Americans working within the U.S. government, have ties to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

Corey Saylor, a spokesperson for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, also known as CAIR, calls questioning the loyalty of ”patriotic American Muslims” based on what he says are old anti-Muslim conspiracy theories “beyond the pale.”

Five GOP members of Congress, including former presidential candidate Michelle Bachman, sent letters to the Inspector General offices for the State Department, as well as the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, questioning whether Abedin and other prominent Muslims are part of a plot by Islamic extremists to infiltrate the U.S. government.

“America wants a serious national security conversation,” says Saylor. “Michelle Bachmann is giving us a six degrees of separation drinking game.”

CAIR, a Washington-based Islamic advocacy group founded in 1994, is not alone in its condemnation. Today veteran Republican Senator John McCain gave a spirited defense of Abedin, calling the allegations against her “ugly” and “sinister.” He chastised his GOP colleagues in the House saying that no one, “not least a member of Congress,” should launch such a “degrading attack against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of that they stand for.”

State Department deputy spokesperson Patrick Ventrell also shot down the accusations, calling them “preposterous.”

Saylor says that Abedin and the other Muslim officials listed in the House letter are American citizens who are “asking what they can do for their nation,” and now Bachmann “seems to be punishing them for the sin of offering that service during a Democratic administration,” he says.

In addition to Abedin, the letters also cite Mohamed Elibiary, an advisor to the Department of Homeland Security named in the letter, as also having possible ties to extremists. Last year Elibiary was given an award by the Society of Former Special Agents for his counter-terrorism work with the FBI.

“Now his contributions have been rewarded by Bachmann questioning his patriotism,” says Saylor.

Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, the only Muslim member of Congress, has sent letters to Bachmann demanding she and her GOP colleagues produce evidence backing up their claims. Ellison told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that the allegations are “the worst of guilt by association,” said Ellison. “It is a stark affront to American values.”

Bachmann has issued a statement saying that Ellison has “distorted” the letters by taking certain comments out of context. “The intention of the letters was to outline the serious national security concerns I had and ask for answers to questions regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical group’s access to top Obama administration officials,” said Bachmann.

But those who have spoken out, including McCain, Ellison and CAIR, reiterate that Bachmann and her House GOP colleague’s questions aren’t based on credible evidence. Saylor says it has more in common with the 1950?s political witch hunt spearheaded by former senator Joe McCarthy to take down political opponents by claiming they were communists. That period is generally seen as one of the darkest in American political history.

“You can’t help drawing parallels between this and McCarthyism,” says Saylor. “Half truths? Guilt by association? Overblown accusations? Sounds like Joe McCarthy to me.”

Rep. Peter King: How did he do with his anti-Muslim hearings?

I authored a review on the first four hearings, you can read the full report here.

REPORT SUMMARY

For seven years prior to the first hearing, Rep. Peter King had maintained that “80%, 85% of the mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists" and that average Muslims "are loyal," but "don't come forward, they don't tell the police what they know. They won't turn in their own." In December 2010, he staunchly announced that he will “stand-by” the 85 percent number. Today, after eight years, four hearings and eighteen witnesses, King has failed to produce the promised evidence to support his stigmatization of America’s Muslims.

Not a single witness attempted to factually validate the allegation of a Muslim community run by extremists. King made only one foray into backing up his allegation during the entire series of hearings. He asked Zuhdi Jasser if extremism is a “systemic problem” in the American Muslim community. Jasser, a physician who works closely with the anti-Muslim movement, is not an expert and has conducted no research on the topic. Jasser’s response: “It's a minority, but there's an ideology that exists in some mosques-- not all, not a majority -- but in some mosques. And it's a significant number.”

Five of the six law enforcement representatives who testified did not support King’s assertion that Muslims do not cooperate with law enforcement. Instead, these witnesses described “strong relationships” with Somali Muslims, “strong bonds” with the American Muslim community and “outreach and engagement with Muslim communities…” Prior to the hearings, FBI Director Muller had told the House Judiciary Committee, “that many of our cases are a result of the cooperation from the Muslim community in the United States."

Raw Story kindly cited the report in their coverage of this week's fifth hearing:

"An analysis by Council on American-Islamic Relations of King’s first four hearings on Islamic radicalization determined that the chairman had 'failed to produce the promised evidence to support his stigmatization of America’s Muslims.'"

"'King’s record of leveling unsubstantiated allegations and biased attacks on the Muslim community and habit of naming people with records of anti-Muslim bias as potential witnesses and information sources denies him any current credibility in discussions about American Muslims and homeland security,' the group concluded."

National Journal: Muslim Vote will Matter in 2012 Election

See the story here.

American Muslims will be an important voting bloc in the 2012 presidential election, but some politicians have been hesitant to reach out to the community for fear of a backlash, said Corey Saylor, spokesman for the Council of Islamic-American Relations.

“People want us to be a part of their movements but sort of toward the edge of stage,” Saylor said. “Often times what we see is that if someone is getting close to the Muslim community, they get attacked for being weak on national security.”

Muslims want to participate in the political process, and they’re paying attention to domestic and foreign events, according to a report released last month by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington.

The report recommends that politicians engage Muslim Americans because they could play key roles in the upcoming election, especially in key swing states like Florida and Michigan.

The U.S. census didn't ask about religious affiliation, so estimates regarding the size of Muslim communities living in Michigan and Florida are imprecise. But as minority voters become increasingly important in elections, Muslim political importance increases too, the report says.

“Because of numbers in Ohio, Florida, Northern Virginia, that’s going to make it a community whose concerns are a little more important to pay attention to this election cycle,” Saylor said.

In 2010, the Pew Research Center estimated that nearly 2.6 million Muslims lived in the United States, representing less than 1 percent of the population. By 2030, the number of Muslims living in the U.S. is expected to more than double, according to the Pew Research Center.

“It’s clear that they’re going to continue to grow and become a bigger piece of the electoral puzzle,” said Aimee Chiu of the American Islamic Congress. “It would be great to start looking at understanding the constituency.”

Policy decisions like the USA Patriot Act and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that followed the 9/11 attacks that caused American Muslims to abandon the Republican Party after supporting George W. Bush in the 2000 election, the report said.

Between 2001 and 2004, the percentage of American Muslims dissatisfied with the country’s direction increased from less than 40 percent to more than 60, according to the report. In 2008, 89 percent of Muslims who voted supported Barack Obama. In 2011, more than three quarters of Muslims approved of Obama’s performance, the report said.

But Muslim support for Democrats isn’t a sure thing. Forty percent of Muslims identified as independent in 2004, according to the report.

The Muslim population in the U.S. is very diverse, said Aimee Chiu of the American Islamic Congress. Muslims care about what’s going on abroad, but they also care about a wide variety of issues, she said.

Muslims are interested in domestic issues like the economy, health care, and civil liberties, Saylor said. Either party could cultivate support among Muslims if they engage with the community and address issues that they’re concerned about, the report said.

Meanwhile, American Muslims can work to show campaigns that engaging with the community is vital to winning elections, Saylor said.

“The people who organize the best and deliver, they’re more likely to get their issues listened to,” he said.

Elibiary: Muslims Can be Patriots, Too

Opinion

Muslims Can Be Patriots, Too
By Mohamed Elibiary
Published November 12, 2010

I was recently appointed a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) and had the honor of swearing an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Some of my track record over the past several years helping to confront foreign-inspired threats to our homeland has recently been made public. That same patriotic track record, however, was met with outrage in what I can only call the "keyboard crusader" corner of the blogosphere. Why? Because a Muslim was appointed to such a position.

What is becoming more obvious daily is that here at home we have some of our fellow citizens here at home have an unevolved view of the clash of civilizations. This self-righteous camp claims to be fighting to counter Bin Laden’s ilk by broadening the enemy category to the religion of Islam and/or casting broad suspicions on all Muslims.

It’s accurate to diagnose the American people as a confused bunch. After all, we are still debating who attacked us on 9/11 and what their ideology was. On the one hand, there are those see our enemy, post-9/11, as Al Qaeda and the global pseudo-jihad movement it spearheads. Then, there are others who believe in a "conveyor belt" theory of sorts. They feel that "Islamism" or the merging of one’s religious identity and nationalism is a gateway to extremism. -- Just as marijuana is considered by some as a "gateway" to harder drugs.

Currently the majority of academics and center-left think tanks view non-violent Islamists as the largely benign Muslim version of Evangelical Christians and therefore natural allies in countering Al-Qaeda and expanding democracies. That view is opposed by right-wing think tanks and security hawks who view non-violent Islamism as merely a pre-cursor stage to violence and an eventual threat to U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Middle East. All these groups and their viewpoints enrich our public discourse and generally welcome nuanced analysis of their point of views in a civil public discourse.

Finally however there is a unique category that views the circle of threat as not pseudo-jihadists or Islamists, but instead as the religion of Islam itself. They’re quick to classify any action by any public Muslim figure as “deception” in the pursuit of an ultimate goal to “subvert our Constitution” and impose a “Caliph” guided by the Koran in its place.

Many of our fellow citizens have spent the greater part of the past nine years confused as to whom our country’s enemy is and in response lash out harmfully at a great number of innocent fellow citizens. We must remember that one can’t listen while he’s shouting, nor discern while conflating broadly into global conspiracies, and only dialoging with sell-out “moderate” Muslims willing to reinforce what we want to believe is not patriotism but simply pouring Novocain upon our paranoia.

The intelligence field is basically about collecting information and producing analytical products to inform government’s policy making process. The counter-intelligence field is basically about playing defense against others trying to steal our national secrets or advance subversion operations against us. Our collective challenge therefore is to identify who America’s enemies are, what their plan is and where to draw the line between “us” and “them” so we stop suffering from fratricide.

An important step down the path of consensus and true service to our country is to settle our post 9/11 public conversation on who exactly “belongs” as an American. We can achieve that by not attempting to outsmart our common sense and adopt separate standards for separate religions and groupings of Americans in our public discourse about security topics. Simply put if we can't substitute the word "Jew" or "Christian" when speaking of Muslims then we should be wise enough to know that’s not the proper way to state a perspective.

There is no valor in being ugly or debasing our democracy’s public discourse in a bullying manner, just evil cowardice.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb, good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love…”

Mohamed Elibiary is a national security expert and an advisor to several government agencies and American Muslim community groups. His e-mail address is melibiary@texasintel.org.

North American Muslims Stand for Free Speech

Credit to Sheila Musaji, founding editor of The American Muslim for initiating the below statement on free speech. I endorse it.

Follow this link to see the full list of endorsers.

A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS
We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.

We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.
We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur’an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.

We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.

As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.

The Qur’an enjoins Muslims to:
* bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
* restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
* remain patient in adversity (3186);
* stand firmly for justice (4:135);
* not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);
* respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
* turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
* hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
* restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
* pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
* repel evil with what is better (41:34).

Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.

We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.

We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence. We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate—not reward them with further attention—by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.

Saylor's Recent Media Appearances

A number of media appearances lately. Here are three of them.

NPR's On the Media from Saturday, September 10, 2010, talking about a series of public service announcements (PSAs) recently produced by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Muslim-American Public Service Announcements

On CNN, also talking about the PSAs.

Finally, on MSNBC's Countdown to discuss growing anti-Muslim hysteria.

Colin Powell's Encouraging Words

During his endorsement of Sen. Obama, former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell made several points that I found encouraging:

Referring to attempts to link people to terrorism, Powell said, “And I’ve also been disappointed frankly by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign has, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that’s been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign, but Mr. McCain says he’s a washed out terrorist—well, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that because of this very, very limited relationship, that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, now Mr. Obama is tainted. What they’re trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings, and I think that’s inappropriate.”

I cannot think how many times this tactic of finding some six degrees of separation link and using it to discredit someone. It was certainly done to Mazen Asbahi.

Referring to American Muslims Powell said, ""I'm also troubled by...what members of the party say, and is permitted to be said, such things as, ‘Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well, the correct answer is, 'He is not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is, 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer's 'No, that's not America.'

Powell continued, "Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

"I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture, at the tail end of this photo essay, was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave, and as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards, purple heart, bronze star, showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death, he was 20 years old, and then at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have a Star of David, it had a crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Ushad Sultan Khan. And he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11. And he waited until he could go serve his country, and he gave his life."

Mourning Imam W. Deen Mohammed

Statement on the Passing of Imam W. Deen Mohammed, leader of the largest Muslim
Movement in America (Chicago, IL, 9/09/08)
[Saylor note: Distributed by a member of Imam Mohammed's family who is also a friend of mine.]

The leader of the largest constituent of Muslims in America, Imam W. Deen Mohammed, son of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad leader of the Nation of Islam, passed away today, he would turn 75 in October.

In 1975 he succeeded his father, leader of the Nation of Islam opening the movement to all races. He was a public servant who stood up against racial oppression, and worked continuously for peace, unity, and reconciliation. He maintained his father's legacy of economic and political empowerment for the Muslim community.

His passing today was confirmed in a statement released by the late leader's family, "Imam W. Deen Mohammed a follower of Prophet Muhammad - on him be peace- and Muslim leader passed away today at his home in Markham, IL. He trusted and he believed in the One G-d the Creator of all systems of Knowledge. We ask that you pray for our father and leader." - The Family of Imam W. Deen Mohammed

AFP: US mega-mosques: Muslim tradition with US convenience

WASHINGTON (AFP, 9/04/2008) — As Islam makes inroads in the United States, American Muslims are setting up mega-mosques that combine religious tradition with typical American convenience.

Modelled on the huge, non-Catholic churches that offer their congregations of at least 2,000 members several different sites for worship, US mega-mosques have become a necessity in some places.

"Frequently, we have buildings designed for the Friday prayer, which is the largest, for 1,000 people and you have 2,000 to 3,000 show up," said Corey Saylor of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

To accommodate the overflow, which also results in traffic jams when prayer is over, US Muslim congregations have set up satellite places of worship, again following the lead of the Christian mega-churches.

That is just one way in which US mega-mosques are decidedly American.

They also offer worshippers a progressive form of Islam, in line with the profile and desires of many Muslim Americans.

While more than two-thirds of Muslim Americans are immigrants, mainly from the Middle East, they are also "decidedly mainstream in their outlook, values and attitudes," a report published last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life said.

They have embraced what is often called the Protestant work ethic and believe, as do many Americans, that hard work pays off.

And Muslim Americans reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in western European countries, the Pew report said.
One mega-mosque in Virginia even rents space from a synagogue.

"This mosque, this branch, is part of a synagogue. Where have you seen that, a synagogue and a mosque? It's a completely American experience," Muslim prayer leader Mohamed Magid said.

That "completely American experience" is particularly attractive to young Muslim Americans, who like the way religious traditions and US efficiency and convenience are married in their places of worship.

In a message to Muslims around the world on the eve of the holy month of Ramadan, US President George W. Bush singled out for praise "the men and women of the Muslim community for their contributions to America."

"Your love of family, and gratitude to God have strengthened the moral fabric of our country," Bush said.

"Our nation is stronger and more hopeful because of the generosity, talents, and compassion of our Muslim citizens," he said.

During Ramadan, which in the United States started on September 1, according to calculations by the Islamic Society of North America, observant Muslims eat a light pre-dawn meal and fast until sunset, a practice aimed at fostering self-discipline, sacrifice and empathy for the poor.

Mosques tend to be heavily frequented during Ramadan, with some remaining open 24 hours a day.

Republish: Eight Points for Political Empowerment of American Muslims

[Saylor's note: Originally distributed in January 2008.]



Eight Points for Political Empowerment of American Muslims
"Peace hath her victories No less renown'd than war."- John Milton
By Corey Saylor

The model of advocacy used by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) connects the vigilance and expertise of paid professionals with the energy of a volunteer community. Thanks to God Almighty, CAIR's method of unified action has a record of results.

"... (T)he Council on American-Islamic Relations has emerged as a vigilant force against discrimination against Muslims."
(Source: East Valley Tribune, 1/19/2008)

"It was overwhelming, their support."
-Host Gator Co. President Brent Oxley after CAIR supporters "swamped" the web host with "literally thousands" of complaints about Right Wing Howler, a blog whose author expressed support for the sentiment "...we need to kill all Muslim kids. Starting now." The web site was shut down.
(Source: St. Petersburg Times, 12/20/2006)

"Already fighting on behalf of American Muslims is the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, as it is commonly known. The organization...has developed a reputation for being something of a pit bull in protecting the civil rights of Muslims."
(Source: The Indianapolis Star, 9/04/2005)

This advocacy model encourages Muslims to use the system to stand for their rights, values and to inject their voice into our national political dialogue.

Point 1: Hold Fast to Your Faith
Do not compromise your ideals. Hold fast to your values. Good civic works involves compromise, but know and adhere to your moral and ethical "red lines."

Point 2: Prove that You Can do the "Heavy Lifting"
Each local community should prove to its neighbors that it can turn out Muslims to interfaith banquets, political rallies on issues of mutual concern and on Election Day. This is action. People respect it.

Point 3: Form More PACs, Connect these PACS
A Political Action Committee (PAC) is a group organized to elect or defeat public officials or to oppose legislation or policy. America's Muslims will benefit from forming more PACs that can participate in local and national elections. While these PACs should have the independence to act as they choose, a coordinating body that can help connect the organizations to share best practices and, when wanted, assist in paralleling work on issues of national concern will be empowering.

Point 4: Insist That Elected Officials Do More Than Simply Show Up
Friendships are welcome and beneficial. However, your bottom line with elected officials must be a track record of action - votes, hearings, public statements - in support of your issues. Substantive support for your issues is more important than face time, number of visits to a mosque or something done a long time ago. Civic work is about making things better for you and your neighbors. This can range from negotiating a less expensive trash collection contract to opposing warrantless eavesdropping. If everyone is smiling at the meetings, but the trash still sits uncollected on the corner, you have not achieved your purpose.

Point 5: Connect with a National Muslim Organization of Your Choice; Support Local and National Muslim Public Affairs Organizations Financially
Our growing institutions are understaffed. Consider giving them more financial support. Your contributions should be tied to the organization providing you with professional service, results and incorporating you into a unified body of activists.

Point 6: Don't Expect an Immediate Place at the Table; Don't Accept a Permanent Seat Away From it
When you are new it is perfectly reasonable for others to "sound you out." They will see if you deliver on promises. They will frequently hold back to ensure that partnering with you will generally reflect well on them and help advance the issues they advocate. However, once you have accommodated this then you have the right to be part of the policy making process.

Point 7: Pursue a Career in Public Affairs
Our community needs more journalists, people working on Capitol Hill, in state government or any number of other places of civic service. Try volunteering for a political campaign.

Point 8: Seek Mentors
Japanese Americans have an experience that in many ways directly parallels ours: they were blamed for an attack on this nation. The civil rights movement is immensely important to understand effective advocacy and draw inspiration. The list is endless. Seek to learn from those who have succeeded already; it cuts the learning curve immensely.