Rep. Peter King, the New York Republican who chairs the Homeland Security Committee, will hold hearings next month on radicalization within the American Muslim community.
Weeks before he bangs the gavel, King is catching flak from both left and right: Conservatives are irked that most of the people he is calling to testify are Muslim leaders; House liberals would like to see him pursue homegrown terrorism more broadly, without a specific focus on Muslims.
Advertisement
The gruff Long Islander, in an interview with National Review Online, shrugs off his critics. The hearings, he predicts, will be neither toothless nor inflammatory. His aim, he says, is simply to dig into the root causes of radicalization with the help of Muslim leaders — Beltway pooh-poohing and political correctness be damned.
“I strongly believe that there is a concerted effort by al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda affiliates to recruit young Muslims living legally in this country,” King says. “It is a real threat, and it deserves our attention.”
Keeping the spotlight on the subject at hand will be a challenge, King acknowledges. He knows how easily such a hearing could devolve into a media circus. But by calling on Muslims to speak up, he hopes to spark a dialogue.
Better cooperation, King reasons, will be encouraged if the hearings turn down the volume and clear the air. For now, Walid Phares, a Beirut-born professor, and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an Arizona physician and military veteran, are slated to appear. Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.), a Muslim, will also participate.
King’s strategy, however, leaves well-known experts on Islamic terrorism outside of the Muslim community — such as Steve Emerson, Robert Spencer, and Daniel Pipes — watching via C-SPAN.
“I don’t want to bring in the same faces,” King explains. “Nine years after September 11, people’s eyes glaze over if they keep seeing the same people. If we have subsequent hearings, and we have more questions, we can bring in others.”
King reckons that by bringing in a slew of Muslim leaders as initial witnesses, he will be able to get them, on record, to more fully explain how Muslims are supporting anti-terror efforts. At the same time, he is looking forward to giving Muslims a platform to voice their concerns about related issues. Looking at radicalization from the Muslim perspective, he says, could yield something constructive, beyond the usual blame game.
“Look, when I meet with Muslim leaders, people who are successful in their community, it is clear that there is no support for al-Qaeda. I don’t sense that at all.” King says. “What I do sense is that they feel like they are under siege.” That fear, he says, is natural, but unfortunate. “If they did speak out, it would make them a much more positive force.”
“It is not enough for them to say that they denounce all terrorism, that they denounce all violence,” King says. “They have to be much more aggressive. I don’t think they fully realize that. They worry that if they came out and highlighted their opposition to Islamic terrorism, it would focus too much attention on the Muslim community, reminding people that these terrorists are Muslims. So they don’t deal with it in an open way.”
I appreciate Rep. King intentions. But I still wonder whether Congressional hearings are the right forum to instill a liberal democratic ethos in any segment of our citizenry. Hearings have an intrinsic accusatory quality about them. And making a group feel persecuted may radicalize rather than moderate.
Any honorable assessment of the American Muslim community would have to conclude that Islam is as amenable to liberal democracy as Christianity or Judaism.
Long time supporter of Rep. King and applaud his initiative to hold hearings, "on the radicalization within the American Muslim Community" and "the recruiting of young Muslims in this country by al-Qaeda and its affiliates."
Looking forward to becoming better informed on these critical issues.
Question to Bob Costa. When you use the term "radicalization", Do you mean the hearings are on the vital, foundational principles of Islam?
You quote Rep. King, "We are not going to get into any interpretations of the Koran".
The incompatibility of these two goals, to get to vital principles and at the same time avoid discussing the Koran is astounding to me.
I expect Rep. King to conduct this hearing with the objectivity, rigorousness and thoroughness he is noted for and not as though he is walking on eggshells as your article implies.
I also expect additional hearings will be required where those highly credentialed, knowledgeable individuals excluded from this hearing will be welcomed.
According to Islam expert Robert Spencer, there is no school of theology recognized in Islam that does not advocate violent Jihad.
"The four Sunni Madhhabs (schools of fiqh [Islamic religious jurisprudence]) -- Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali -- all agree that there is a collective obligation on Muslims to make war on the rest of the world. Furthermore, even the schools of thought outside Sunni orthodoxy, including Sufism and the Jafari (Shia) school, agree on the necessity of jihad." External Link (FAQs, g.)
This is the fundamental problem--and why peaceful Muslims are reluctant to speak out against the Supremacists.
I wish Rep. King the best, but with Islam itself off the table, I fear that the exercise will be a waste of time.
Pete King is an open and unabashed terrorist sympathizer. He not only has been vocal of his support for the IRA, but has attended fundraisers for them, and in the novel that he wrote, the character based on himself turns to the IRA for support, and they end up being the heroes of the novel.
Maybe he is so paranoid about terrorist sympathizers because he is one.
Considering that the IRA has known and long-standing connections with Al Qaeda--they've been supplying them with weapons for decades, and are still a major sources of weapons used to kill U.S. soldiers in the Middle East--I can't believe we are letting this man question OTHERS about terrorist ties.
I say we need a full investigation of Pete King's support for an terrorist organization that has offered material support to Al Qaeda. People have gone to prison for less.
Based on King's self-imposed limitations outlined in the article - no Koran, no recognized experts - I think this is going nowhere. The Koran is central to the issues and recognized experts are the best resource to help any investigation sort through the convoluted, contradictory and evasive language of Islam and Islamists.
The only way to conduct an effective investigation is to utterly ignore political correctness, toss the rose-colored glasses and forthrightly approach Islam as a political ideology, whose adherents are either fully engaged in its goal of worldwide domination, or are fearful of appearing in opposition.
Islam means "submission", Muslim means "one who submits". A Muslim submits by an enthusiastic act of will, in response to fear, or, most commonly, a combination of both. That's how this ingenious, but nefarious, political system works. Opposition, rebellion and failure to submit is dangerous to life and limb. It's pretty effective.
King will never publicly get what he wants out of lay Muslims. It's somewhat like his problem with law enforcement. They won't say in public what they may confide in private. He certainly won't get anything useful from Muslim leaders, who fully embrace the cause. He'll only get useful information and analysis from non-Muslims who are experts by experience, by study and by investigation. His will be no investigation at all, just another provocative show trial.
P.S. Isn't it ironic that political correctness is a type of Islam? Even works similarly. Quite ingenious and very destructive of liberty.
I agree congressional hearings can be confrontational, but I believe this conversation needs to take place. Is it the right setting? Who's too say. You can bet there is going to be a loud noise coming from the liberal side of this country. I want to hear from the Muslim leaders so much more than I have in the last 10 years. Do they fear speaking out? Many unanswered questions since 9/11.
Good luck to Rep. King ~ hoping he is not just another set of lips.
Though it may make certain types of people feel good about themselves to say it, the notion (uttered below by "NYC Resident") that "Islam is as amenable to liberal democracy as Christianity or Judaism" - is, quite simply, counterfactual.
Ignorance and political correctness will be our undoing. I've been saying this for 20 years, and it's turning out to be very, very true.
Congressional hearings aimed at demonstrating Islam's core as extremist is precisely the kind of thing our founding fathers sought to prevent with the Establishment Clause.
It is also self-defeating.
A fair inquiry into the history of Islam (and any other revealed religion)would show a complicated picture. Western tradition owes much to Islamic philosophers. Do we really need Congress to declare Avicenna and Averroes heretics? Do we really need Congress to declare Al-Qaeda's interpretation of Koran correct? And, on the other side, a fair history of Christianity would be hard-pressed to conclude the majority of Christian thinkers advocated liberal democracy.
There is no question that we need to confront our enemies with eyes open. But in so doing we must take care not to alienate our friends and undermine our own values.
“There has not been enough cooperation from the Muslim community,” King says. “That is what I have learned over the past eight or nine years in dealing with law-enforcement officials at all levels. It has been disappointing."
Are well-meaning Muslims more afraid of becoming Islamist infidel targets by speaking out ? I think they are too intimidated by their more extremist brethren to stick their necks out in any meaningful way to help. Cartoonists get death threats...imagine the fate of informers.
@RiotLibrarian,
Mr. King is no terrorist supporter. The struggle in the north of Ireland was against a bonafide occupier - I believe Americans would do the same if such happened in their nation.
Go Pete!
Right after 911, many on the left couldn't wait to look at it from the other perspective - you say terrorist ... I say freedom fighter. It's like they had no empathy for their actual neighbors but instead want to grandstand how open minded they are - total phonies.
Even King is equivocating. It isn't just "Islamic Jihad" or "radicalization" that is at issue. It is the fundamentally violent nature of Islamic teachings that can be set off by any little "insult" or perceived injury to their "faith" or their "prophet". It is Muslims’ susceptibility to the “call” of any lice infested Imam that can claim to speak in the name of Allah. It is, in fact, the programming of the Islamic mind that needs to be examined and exposed.
The issue is the violence inherent in Islam and the suitability of large Muslim communities settling here and - most worrying - the institutionalizing of Islam in the West, funded by foreign and local sources.
Once and for all, get at the root of the problem, expose it and do something about it.
Even King is equivocating. It isn't just "Islamic Jihad" or "radicalization" that is at issue. It is the fundamentally violent nature of Islamic teachings that can be set off by any little "insult" or perceived injury to their "faith" or their "prophet". It is Muslims’ susceptibility to the “call” of any lice infested Imam that can claim to speak in the name of Allah. It is, in fact, the programming of the Islamic mind that needs to be examined and exposed.
The issue is the violence inherent in Islam and the suitability of large Muslim communities settling here and - most worrying - the institutionalizing of Islam in the West, funded by foreign and local sources.
Once and for all, get at the root of the problem, expose it and do something about it.
Congress does NOT have investigatory powers. It is a legislative body, not a judicial or executive body. That is deliberate and good.
“If there are people in the United States who are organizing against the government, it does fall within our congressional responsibility,” he argues. “A number of people have said that this is for the FBI, not for Congress. Well, in that case, Bobby Kennedy and Jack Kennedy never would have investigated the Teamsters. Congress does have an investigative role to play.”
John & Robert Kennedy were President and Attorney general, not members of congress.
Rep. King doesn't know what he's talking about, even if his heart is in the right place.
Our county would be better off if we would curtail immigration from Muslim countries. If we continue to invite them in we do so at our own peril. I would trade legalization of illegal immigrants from Mexico in exchange for a halt to immigration from Pakistan and other radical Muslim countries.
"They worry that if they came out and highlighted their opposition to Islamic terrorism, it would focus too much attention on the Muslim community, reminding people that these terrorists are Muslims."
I think it more likely they worry "if they came out and highlighted their opposition to Islamic terrorism" - they would be killed.
Follow
