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.

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."

Rep. Peter King Should Apologize to Muslim 9/11 Victim's Mother

By Corey Saylor

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) should personally apologize to Talat Hamdani, whose son Mohammed was killed as he responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack.

This week, in an interview opposing a hearing on protecting American Muslim civil rights, King told Fox News that the hearing advances, “the myth that somehow Muslims are the victim of September 11.”

Congressman, all Americans, Muslims included, were the victims of the 9/11 terror attack. As Al-Qaeda was murdering our fellow citizens, they also murdered at least 32 Muslims.

Mohammed Salman Hamdani, was a part-time ambulance driver and a police cadet. After witnessing the attack, he ran to assist victims. His remains were identified six months later; his medical bag was found next to his body.

Rep. King knows Hamdani’s story because Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) read it aloud during a recent hearing King held. If Rep. Ellison’s tears during the hearing were not enough to move King’s conscience, maybe a reminder the Hamdani was honored in Title 1, Section 102 of the USA Patriot Act, which King voted for, might be.

Al-Qaeda, not Islam, murdered Americans on 9/11. They did not care about their victim’s faith. Every American was a target.

Al-Qaeda has continued to slaughter Muslims since 9/11. After reviewing a 2009 report titled Deadly Vanguards: A Study of Al-Qaida’s Violence Against Muslims, Ralph Peters, wrote in New York Post, “Al-Qaeda does one thing extremely well: killing Muslims.”

President Obama echoed this conclusion at a White House Ramadan fastbreaking reception in 2010 when he noted, “In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion — and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.”

Mr. King, it is time to find your sense of shame and apologize, sir.

Saylor: Rep. Peter King can do some real damage with congressional Muslim hearings

Saylor: Rep. Peter King can do some real damage with congressional Muslim hearings


As published in The Statesman
Saturday, March 5, 2011

Rep. Peter King's fumblings around his planned hearings on Muslim "radicalization" may one day raise amused eyebrows. However, since he is positioned to do some real damage, his inept handling of the hearings raises nothing but alarm.

As chairman of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, King announced his hearings by reciting his allegation that "over 80 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by radical imams." In January, he said he will "stand-by" that number.

When asked, King points to no authoritative source for his 80 percent allegation.

Instead he cites a speech given at the U.S. Department of State in the late 1990s by Hisham Kabbani, a figure who is unknown to most U.S. Muslims.

One man's opinion. Kabbani to this day does not respond to inquiries about his source for this allegation.

A person in King's position should seek higher quality evidence than one person's unsubstantiated allegation. Such lax "one person's opinion" standards led to bad things during the Salem witch trials and the McCarthy hearings.

(King, by the way, also believes "there are too many mosques in America.")

Next, Politico reported that according to King, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a potential witness at the hearing.

During the course of a single 2007 interview with Reason Magazine Ali said, "I think that we are at war with Islam" and called for Islam to be "defeated." Later in the interview, Ali suggested that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to allow for discrimination against Muslims.

Once such facts became public, Ali was dropped.

Most recently, a National Review article -- posted on the House Homeland Security Committee's website so presumably King felt it was accurate -- announced that Walid Phares was a planned witness for the hearings.

Phares is a former official with a Christian militia implicated, by Israel's official Kahan inquiry and other sources, in the 1982 massacre of civilian men, women and children at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon.

In the late 1990s, leading members of Phares' World Lebanese Organization included the deputy commander of a group known for systematically torturing prisoners. Another leading member headed a militia known for atrocities during the Lebanese civil war.

Once such facts became public, Phares was dropped as well. Even after learning of Phares' past associations, King issued a statement saying he will rely on Phares "for his advice and counsel as these hearings go forward."

King could have saved himself, his committee and his party a lot of embarrassment by doing a basic internet search on either of these extreme individuals. Even more embarrassment could have been saved by checking the factual basis of any allegations before casually tossing them out in public.

The threat of violent extremism, from whatever source, to our nation is a profoundly serious issue.

However, King's baseless allegations and extremist witnesses raise reasonable questions about the credibility of the hearings as a force to oppose the threat.

It is time for House Speaker Boehner and other Republicans to rein King in. King's fumbling is not only embarrassing, but distracts from a serious issue.

Corey Saylor is national legislative director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Contact him at csaylor@cair.com.

Interview with Fox's Bill Hemmer on King Hearings

Here is the video.

BILL HEMMER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Congressman Peter King now, new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee responding to critics of his plans for hearings from the -- on the threat from Islamic terrorism in America.

He's a New York Republican. He said this last hour here in AMERICA'S NEWSROOM with Martha. Roll this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETER KING, R-N.Y., HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE: My goal, first of all, is to make it known and make the public aware and to begin a public debate on the fact that al Qaeda is actively recruiting within the Muslim community.

This isn't just me saying this. There's Attorney General Eric Holder, a very liberal attorney general, by the way, said just about five weeks ago that he can't sleep at night because of the number of young Muslim men who have been radicalized to take up arms against their country. These are American citizens. People living here, legally in this country, are taking up arms against their country.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

HEMMER: All right. So Peter King is not backing down.

Corey Saylor is with CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
And sir, good morning to you.

SAYLOR: Good morning, Bill.

HEMMER: Peter King, you heard it. He said his goal is to make the public aware that al Qaeda is working to recruit Americans. What's wrong with that? Trying to figure that out.

COREY SAYLOR, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS: Well, he's actually changing his talking points. How he started off -- and you can go back and check his interview with Bill O'Reilly -- is saying that 85 percent of American Muslim leadership in this country is an enemy living amongst us. And even yesterday he acknowledged to FOX News that that number comes from one individual who'd never provided any documentation to back it up.

And that's where my real concern comes. I have facts -- Rand Corporation, Congressional Research Service, Duke University -- that offer contradictory evidence to what Congressman King is saying.

HEMMER: And part of the reason you hold these hearings --

SAYLOR: And yet he wants to keep throwing out --

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: Part of the reason you hold these hearings is to figure out what the facts are. Are you denying that al Qaeda is not recruiting Americans?

SAYLOR: Well, I think any attempt by anyone to recruit Americans, even one individual, is something to be concerned about. But, again, if these hearings were going to be sober and objective I wouldn't have a concern.

HEMMER: Well, they haven't happened yet.

SAYLOR: Hang on, Bill. Hang on, Bill.

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: They might be. Go to his point about Muslim --

SAYLOR: They might not be, Bill. And that's the point.

HEMMER: Yes. Are -- King is worried about Muslim leaders not speaking out about the issue. Are Muslim leaders and mosques across America holding back?

SAYLOR: Once again, King has said there are too many mosques in America. He recently implied that -- that Muslims may not be Americans on a radio show. I can show you in these reports that I'm holding up, instances in which Muslim leadership have cooperated with law enforcement, have reported people of concern, and yet Congressman King does not want to acknowledge that.

HEMMER: I understand that. But again that's why you hold --

SAYLOR: He continues to advance allegations that have no substance.

HEMMER: That's why you hold a hearing and he told Martha last hour that he would allow law enforcement to testify during these hearings, do we'll take him at his word. But back to my two questions. Is al Qaeda recruiting in America, yes or no?

SAYLOR: Absolutely. We know that. But what you have to do is make sure we have a sober and objective understanding of that. Not Congressman King's lashing out --

HEMMER: OK. It's a yes. Now do you believe --

SAYLOR: People with pitch forks, 85 percent, which he cannot substantiate, and American Muslims may not be Americans. In his view. Eighty-five percent of the leadership is not cooperating. That's just absolutely unsubstantiated.

HEMMER: So, Mr. Saylor, yes -- but you just said, you know, al Qaeda is recruiting in America and we have examples. A kid drives from Denver, Colorado, into New York, to bomb the city. And you could go on many from there. On Muslim leaders --

SAYLOR: And we have --

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: Are Muslim leaders in America --

SAYLOR: Sure.

HEMMER: -- saying enough to help their fellow Americans to stop this before one of these guys is successful?

SAYLOR: Well, let me just give you a couple -- personal examples, Bill. In 2006 I went to Baghdad to appeal for the release of a journalist who had been kidnapped. More recently some families came to us from Virginia, told us about their concerns, about some of their family members, and we connected them with the FBI.

But also, keep in mind, in 2008 our Los Angeles office reported somebody of concern to the FBI. A year later that person turned out to be an FBI informant.

HEMMER: Wow.

SAYLOR: So I'm convinced that our community is doing the right thing.

HEMMER: OK. And that -- I think that's good.

SAYLOR: I'm not convinced of -- hang on. What I'm not convinced of is the fact that Peter King is going to hold sober and objective hearings based on statements like there are too many mosques in America.

HEMMER: OK. I got it. Corey Saylor, thank you for coming in today. That's why they hold hearings. We will watch it very closely and while it happens or after we'll bring you back on and get you to respond again. OK. Appreciate you coming on.

SAYLOR: Thanks so much, Bill and Martha.

HEMMER: Thank you, out of Washington.

February 9, 2011