The American Muslim (TAM)

Biased JCPA Report - “American Muslims: The Community and Their Relations with Jews”

Sheila Musaji
Posted Mar 15, 2011 •Permalink • Printer-Friendly Version

Biased JCPA Report - “American Muslims: The Community and Their Relations with Jews”

by Sheila Musaji

A report was just published on the site of the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs American Muslims: The Community and Their Relations with Jews by Noam Ivri.

I can’t help but wonder why a Jewish think tank, located in Israel, and whose “about us” statement on their websites state — The Institute or Global Jewish Affairs It has become a leading research and information program on worldwide contemporary Anti-Semitism as well as emerging trends in that field. Both the project and its monthly publication Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism address issues concerning past and present acts of persecution against world Jewry as well as post-war issues relating to the Holocaust. Specific subjects include , anti-Semitism in specific countries, Jewish and anti-Israel boycotts in particular on campus, Muslim and Christian anti-Semitism, and the negative portrayal of Israel in the media. Post-Holocaust subjects include matters such as manipulations of Holocaust history, Holocaust education and restitution issues. Many of the world’s leading experts in these fields have been published in the series. Articles reach more than a million readers/viewers per year. — The Jerusalem Center The Center is a multidisciplinary, independent non-profit think tank for Israel policy research and education, bringing together the best minds in the political, strategic, diplomatic and legal arenas, in Israel and abroad. — would be interested in publishing a major position paper on the American Muslim community and its’ leadership.

I also can’t help but wonder if it is a coincidence that it is being published just before Rep. Peter King’s proposed hearings on radicalization of the American Muslim community.

This report is not as strident as the anti-Muslim screeds by Islamophobes like Pamela Geller, but for that very reason it is more dangerous. It attempts to give the impression of being an academic and impartial position paper.

INTRODUCTION

“Three well-organized and well-funded political and civil rights organizations form the core Muslim advocacy.They work within the American political process to advance Muslim interests, but frequently present their community as victims of widespread “Islamophobia.“Leaders in all three have drawn controversy for support of extremist groups, and are overall hostile to Israel.”

Is countering Islamophobia not advancing Muslim interests? What is the proof that these Muslim organizations are “hostile to Israel”? Does being pro-Palestinian automatically make you hostile to Israel?

“Since 9/11 several counterestablishment groups, often led by a charismatic individual, have been formed to promote alternative visions for American Muslims.Strongly influenced by their adopted homeland, they perceive the character and policies of United States more favorably and advocate for a moderate Islam in harmony with democratic, pluralistic values. Nevertheless, their influence among the broader Muslim community is still quite limited. Similar social currents have emerged in the openness of American society, questioning taboo issues such as homosexuality and apostasy, and spurring American Muslims into the spotlight of global Islamic debates.”

This is brilliant. The inference is that those in the Muslim community who are “in harmony with democratic, pluralistic values” are outside of the broader Muslim community, i.e. they are supposedly a minority in the American Muslim community.

Discussing current dialogue efforts between Jews & Muslims this report says “Despite modest successes, the differences over Israel and questions regarding some Muslims’ sincere embrace of moderate positions still present stumbling blocks to sustained contacts, especially at the national level.”

What are the questions about “some Muslims’ sincere embrace of moderate positions”? The only question inferred is that of their integrity or honesty in the positions they have stated, as the only “stumbling block” would be insincerity.

The report then moves to History and Demographic Trends which is a simple outline of the historic waves of immigration, and moves on to The Numbers Debate and criticizes a 2001 CAIR study for its unscientific research methods and says “Some critics emphasized CAIR’s political aims, arguing that these self-styled Muslim leaders inflated population figures to appear more powerful and deserving of policymakers’ attention.” The report then goes on to support the American Jewish Committee (AJC) study which came up with a much lower number for the Muslim population of the U.S. and further notes “The dueling 2001 demographic surveys provoked a harsh war of words between Muslim and Jewish groups, deepening mutual tension that lingers up to the present. CAIR executive director Nihad Awad said the Jewish community was trying to “marginalize” the growing Muslim population, ... David Harris, the AJC executive director, dismissed the claims and said his group’s study was merely about “truth and accuracy,” and the “wildly divergent” estimate by the Muslim groups was geared for gaining more influence in Washington.”

Whether there are 2 million or 5 million or 10 million Muslims in the U.S. - who cares. We are still a very small minority. One must wonder why the AJC would deem this question of enough importance to commission such a study.

Last year Vanity Fair published their 2010 100 most influential people and when it came out there was a lot of ink spilled about how many among this group were Jewish. Of course, anti-Semites jumped on this as some sort of “proof” of Jews attempting to take over. However, Jewish people also noticed the preponderance of Jews on this list and were proud, e.g. Jews Dominate Vanity Fair 100 Most Influential Moguls List by Michael Kaminer in the Jewish Forward, and Feel the power by Joseph Aaron about the 2007 list in Jewish World Review. The point is that Vanity Fair thought that more than 50% of the influential people in America were Jewish. That is the fact. What you make of that fact is a matter of personal opinion.

The next sections of the report discusses the Ethnic and Religious Subgroups discusses the ethnic and national backgrounds of the American Muslim community, and the Economic and Social Trends. One of the social trends reported is the development of an accredited Muslim College - Zaytuna College “Headed by two American converts to Islam and frequent media guests Hamza Yusuf and Zaid Shakir, Zaytuna hopes to expand its curriculum and student body over the next decade and provide a vehicle for the expression of a uniquely American Islam, perhaps in a fashion similar to what Yeshiva University has expressed for traditional American Jewry. Still, the past radical backgrounds of the two concern some observers. Shakir once wrote an essay about Islam being incompatible with democracy and to this day wishes for America to turn into a Muslim country, while Yusuf has called Judaism “a most racist religion.”

The reference for the claims against Shakir and Yusuf is a positive article by Laurie Goodstein U.S. Muslim Clerics Seek a Modern Middle Ground from which this negative aspersion on Imam’s Yusuf and Shakir is cherry picked to leave a negative impression, and which says clearly that Yusuf has changed his tune and apologized for some previous statements which were not balanced. The article also says about Shakir’s coment “He said he still hoped that one day the United States would be a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law, “not by violent means, but by persuasion.” “Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country,” he said. “I think it would help people, and if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be a Muslim. Because Islam helped me as a person, and it’s helped a lot of people in my community.” Bringing up an issue about the character of these men without giving the whole story is very deceptive.

The next section, Established Communal Organizations“Many organizations claim to represent the extremely diverse American-Muslim constituency. ... Various grassroots-based groups have sprung up since 9/11 also to challenge the established organizations’ perceived disconnect with the “mainstream” views. Three “mainstream” Muslim groups can be classified with several attributes. They all are comprised of Muslims from diverse backgrounds, not just catering to one ethnic or regional Muslim grouping.[24] All operate within the constraints of American societal norms and political processes, embracing pluralism and a moderate Islam at least officially. More discouragingly, all express a somewhat obsessive hostility to Israeli and American actions, in contrast to remaining silent or ambivalent about Muslim sufferings elsewhere such as in Darfur or Pakistan. Perhaps most distinguishing is these groups’ attachment to depicting American Muslims as perpetual victims of Islamophobia, particularly after 9/11, and their staunch opposition to federal antiterror measures. They sometimes present conspiracy-theory arguments about government policies, suggesting that Muslim vilification is a hidden national agenda and Islamic extremism an exaggerated if not mythical threat. The groups ambiguously condemn incidences of Islamist terrorism, singling out some individuals and acts but remaining evasive elsewhere, or even defending “armed struggle” in certain conflicts. Federal authorities have investigated two of them, mainly on suspicions of supporting foreign terrorist groups.”

Here we see a not so subtle attempt to influence the readers perceptions about existing organizations. They “claim to represent”, have a “perceived disconnect with the “mainstream” views”, embrace pluralism and moderation “at least officially”, “all express a somewhat obsessive hostility to Israeli and American actions”, and remain “silent or ambivalent about Muslim sufferings elsewhere”, they “depict American Muslims as perpetual victims of Islamophobia”, their condemnation of extremism and terrorism is “ambiguous” and “evasive”.

The report then moves from Muslim organizations generally to specific organizations. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) which “tries to display a moderate Islam image through interfaith activities, humanitarian relief efforts, and educating Americans about Islam in marketing drives.” The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) which “tries to promote a distinct Muslim identity in America and present Americans with a sympathetic image of Islam.” A number of positive efforts are named but then “MPAC has condemned certain Muslim-perpetrated terrorist attacks, but often mentions Islamophobia in the same sentence as mutually deplorable. The council released a very critical report of the Department of Homeland Security’s post-9/11 counterterrorism measures, arguing that the policies were laden with “anti-Islam rhetoric,” and more often than not has complained of law enforcement’s “profiling of Muslims.” And, finally CAIR. “The third major group and most controversy-laden is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a self-proclaimed civil rights movement that aims to counter negative views on Muslims. ... founded in 1994 by several leaders of the Hamas front group Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). Spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper frequently appears on television as a perceived representative of the Muslim community. ... Somewhat modeled after the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the organization constantly reports on instances of alleged discrimination and harassment against American Muslims. More than any other group, it plays the victim card, frequently asserting that its critics have an “anti-Islam agenda” and sometimes throwing the “Zionist” label at them to suggest that their supposed pro-Israel sympathies predispose their negative views on Muslims.”

Muslim organizatiions “try to display a moderate image”, “try to present a sympathetic image of Islam”?? Why is condemning both Muslim extremists and Islamophobia as mutually deplorable a negative trait? Who decides who is a representative of the Muslim community?

The next section, Anti-Semitism and Hostility to Israel among the “Mainstream” shows extreme bias even in the section title. “The well-organized and well-funded three mainstream groups project an overall image of respect for American democracy and commitment to pluralism with other religions. However, at some rallies and group gatherings, they have issued hostile declarations against Israel and support for jihadist groups, and in other cases blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric. This trend, coupled with the accusations of terrorism against ISNA and some CAIR officials, has hurt the reputation of these groups as moderate and made Jewish organizations cautious in pursuing dialogue with them. It has also generated debate among observers as to how accurately these organizations reflect the aspirations of American Muslims.” Regarding MPAC the report says “MPAC has been free of overt terrorist associations, yet prominent members have still taken rabidly anti-Israel positions and in some instances made anti-Semitic statements. The organization argued in a 1999 policy paper that Hizballah and Hamas should be removed from the United States’ list of foreign terrorist groups and stood by Islamic Jihad suspect Sami Al-Arian when he was brought to trial. On the eve of Israel’s sixtieth anniversary, MPAC released a press kit highlighting “60 years of Palestinian suffering,” endorsing the “right of return,” and blaming Zionism for the vast majority of the conflict.”

The report then goes on to list some specific incidents that supposedly show “mainstream” anti-Semitism, again without telling the whole story. And brings up the famous “unindicted co-conspirator” charge against ISNA and CAIR. The charges raised against MPAC are curious as they are definitely about political issues where disagreement is protected as free speech. This is a really tiresome and meaningless slinging of mud. There have been members of the Jewish community who have been involved in actual acts of Terrorism (the JDL is a prime example). There have been Jewish individuals not only indicted but convicted of espionage against the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government (Jonathan Pollard and Ben-Ami Kadish, and the Larry Franklin case are examples.) In addition to all those indicted and convicted in the Watergate scandal, the Grand Jury secretly named Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator. Remember him, the President of the U.S.

One issue raised concerns about an individual who is on the MPAC staff and an incident that happened in 1999 when she was a student at UCLA “Communications Director Edina Lekovic formerly edited the UCLA campus Muslim Students Association magazine Al-Talib, in which she wrote in 1999 that “When we hear someone refer to the great Mujahid…, Osama bin Laden, as a ‘terrorist,’ we should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter.”

This was an issue raised by Steven Emerson and discussed by Daniel Pipes and Emerson at great length. There was never any question that she wrote the statement that appeared in an issue of the student magazine, but whether or not she was then an editor and should have noticed the statement and removed it. How this falls under “mainstream” anti-Semitism is anyone’s guess.

The report then moves to CAIR and raises all sorts of issues that the author has with this organization including “Saudi funding”, “unindicted co-conspirator”, arranging a “speaking tour by activist Dovid Weiss of the Jewish, radically anti-Zionist Neturei Karta organization”, sponsoring a Press Club talk “with The Israel Lobby authors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt”, honoring “journalist Helen Thomas with a Lifetime Achievement Award” after the incident which forced her to leave the White House Press Corps, and objecting to the content of Khalid Duran’s book Child of Abraham: An Introduction to Islam for Jews, which the report calls an “assault” on Duran. This book was commissioned by the AJC, and the report tells us that the AJC “anticipated the book exchange as an avenue for expanded outreach to American Muslims. The report goes on to claim that the fact that a Jordanian cleric issued a despicable fatwa calling for Duran’s murder was the fault of CAIR.

The next section Countercurrents and Alternative Muslim Movements talks about the emergence of new groups. “They seek a more inclusive Islam that stands opposed to the establishment’s “victimization” approach and reject politicizing the religion or attaching it to certain political-ideological causes abroad. They regard America as a blessing for Muslims, allowing them to flourish among a mostly tolerant population. In a similar vein, Muslim individuals have challenged long-established Islamic norms in an American context, pushing for debate of such long-taboo issues as gay rights and women’s roles in mosques. Yet other activists have renounced Islam altogether, a move tantamount to death throughout the Muslim world, and strive to force acceptance of ex-Muslims and freedom from religion.>

This section goes on to discusss what the report calls “Grassroots and Independent Organizations” and includes only a very few (five) that the author of the report considers “moderate”. Why is a Jewish study concerned with identifying those they consider “moderate Muslims”. This is yet another attempt at “religion building” and creating divisions within the American Muslim community by setting up a false “good Muslim vs bad Muslim” dichotomy.

The next section Challenging Islamic Norms discusses a number of current debates within the Muslim community in the U.S. — gender equality, women as Imam’s and leading prayers, homosexuality and the position of gay members of the Muslim community. The report discusses the now defunct groups Muslim Wakeup and the Progressive Muslim Union, and notes that they first brought issues of gender equality and even woman led prayers to the forefront. The report mentions my dear friend Amina Wadud who was among the first to lead prayers in the U.S., and notes that this “provoked great debate within American and international Muslim circles. Many Islamic scholars in America supported her move, arguing that it encouraged a needed discussion on religious mores, while a prominent Egyptian cleric said her actions were in accordance with one interpretation of shari’a law.” Not content to focus on the stated topic of the entire report American Jews and American Muslims it raises the issue of the negative reaction of some foreign Imams and scholars.

The problems with this section are in expressing these intra-faith debates as something alien and different from the very same debates going on within other religious communities in America. Discussions about these issues are “needed” within all religious communities. And the final segment of this section shows the true motives of the author. he refers to “A Daring Step Further: Renouncing the Faith” as if this is the manifestation of really reaching the pinnacle of success as a Muslim - renouncing Islam. These former Muslims “within America’s protection have gone a step beyond, believing Islam at its core to be the problem, its basic values incompatible with the modern, democratic world. They argue that only with full secularization of Islam as a personal belief, rather than its current manifestation as a sort of social-political order, will the religion and adherents escape their many shortcomings in the contemporary world. Many holders of this paradigm have come to the United States precisely for its freedoms and values that they believe represent the polar opposite of the Muslim world. Several women are among its most ardent advocates. One in particular, Syrian-born psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, sparked a firestorm in Muslim circles worldwide when she renounced her belief in Islam on Al Jazeera and insisted that Islam is on the losing side of a war between “modernity and barbarism.”

After trashing the American Muslim community and its organizations the report gets to the topic of Jewish-Muslim Dialogue efforts and finds that “Many of the Jewish communal organizations in America, varied in agendas and large in number, have tried to find common partners among the matrix of Muslim organizations and leaders, particularly in the post-9/11 and Second Intifada contexts. As fellow minorities in a Christian-majority nation with many common rituals as well as points of intense difference, it would seem natural for Muslims and Jews to build bridges wherever possible. Over the past several decades, initiatives have been launched that highlight the common religious and cultural heritage of the two, as well as appealing to mutual interests such as hate-crimes legislation and support for faith-based education. Nevertheless, the Muslim organizations’ own sharp differences with each other have made it all the more difficult for Jewish groups to find a counterpart whom they feel speaks for a consensus or at least sizable portion of Muslims in America. Moreover, the profound differences over Israel’s policies - and often its very existence - as well many Jewish groups’ concerns over many established Muslim groups’ anti-Semitic rhetoric and ties to terrorists, have made it difficult to sustain national-level Jewish-Muslim dialogue efforts up to the present. ... The Jewish support was based on a combination of the tradition of reaching out to other religions in America’s heterogeneous religious scene and a pragmatic strategy to cultivate good ties with a growing group that could wield increased political clout in the coming generations. Muslims committed to the dialogue sought to win the trust of an influential minority and learn about their successful strategies in community institution-building and lobbying, not to mention their economic success. And perhaps as a lesser but nevertheless important calculus, the two sides felt that breaking down stereotypes and building trust could mitigate problems between the religions’ adherents in the Middle East and serve as a positive example to other Jewish and Muslim diasporas.”

Absolutely amazing methodology for encouraging dialogue. The Jews “have tried to find partners” among the Muslims, “nevertheless” those pesky Muslims just spoil all of their efforts. But, of course this would be the case since the Jewish support for dialogue “was based on a combination of the tradition of reaching out to other religions in America’s heterogeneous religious scene and a pragmatic strategy to cultivate good ties with a growing group that could wield increased political clout in the coming generations.” And, those Muslims just don’t have such a tradition and were only interested in dialogue in order to “win the trust of an influential minority and learn about their successful strategies in community institution-building and lobbying, not to mention their economic success.” The report consistently sites at length the opinions of groups like the Center for Islamic Pluralism

The next section The Ground Zero Mosque gives away its bias in the section title. No one except bigots calls the proposed Cordoba House/Park51 project “the ground zero mosque”. The report says the controversy has “seeped into Muslim-Jewish relations” and attempts to justify some Jewish groups opposition to the mosque.

The next section Anti-Semitic Trends: Campus Hostility and Physical Violence admits that The general state of relations between Muslims and Jews in the United States is much more placid than that between their counterparts in European countries and then once again brings up the issue of population as one of the factors influencing this better relationship Jews are more numerous than Muslims, a phenomenon unique to America among Western countries; this strength-in-numbers factor has strong psychological underpinnings. And, again the subtle bigotry The more active network of dialogue and interfaith outreach and the nonhomogeneous composition of America may also serve to prevent the widespread emergence of an “us vs. them” mentality among Muslims toward Jews and the Christian majority, as has developed overseas. Unlike in many European cities, religious Jews can comfortably wear their skullcaps in public and not worry about harassment or assaults. Nevertheless, certain trends among Muslim Americans in their attitudes toward Jews have been worrisome and draw parallels to Europe.

Is really Muslims that “play the victim card”? an “us vs. them” mentality among Muslims toward Jews and the Christian majority is clearly a one sided accusation that any tension between the communities is the fault of the Muslims.

At this point I was unable to continue attempting to understand or respond to this propaganda. The report continues in the same vein.

I’ll summarize - Muslim organizations send “ambivalent messages”, the MSA condemned terrorist attacks committed by Muslims, though it often conditions this with the need for more mutual understanding and bridge-building activities with other religions. There have been some American Muslims involved in extremism and even terrorism. Some of these had respectable positions and their extremism and went unnoticed for some time. This is part of a a wider phenomenon of Muslims born and bred in America attacking fellow citizens in their ideological rage over certain government policies. The report focuses on extremist groups and incidents as if they represent the majority. For example, the Islamic Thinkers Society and Revolution Muslim are mentioned at length without ever stating that the total number of members are 5 to 10 at most. There have been some individuals who have expressed anti-Semitic views.

The report objects to using terms like “apartheid” or referring to a “Palestinian holocaust” towards Israel and uses the fact that some Muslims have used these terms or promoted “divestment from Israel” as some sort of proof that they are anti-Semitic.

Conclusion

The future trends for American Islam are difficult to predict but will undoubtedly be influenced by events within the United States and the Muslim world. Still, the circumstances within which American Muslims operate offer the most potential among any Western community for sustainable moderate, tolerant strands of Islam to develop.

And again the population question comes up Intertwined with all the above issues are the implications of the community’s growing population. Currently, it is estimated to number just under three million, but it is expanding for the foreseeable future. With high birthrates, conversions, and continued immigration, American Muslims will increase by several million over the next decade or two. How this will translate into political clout in Washington and influence in society is a difficult question to answer. Will the increased size give the mainstream groups more confidence and encourage them to radicalize their positions and demands? Or will the growth translate into greater diversity and bolster the existing moderate groups or spur the creation of newer, if not more effective ones? How will international developments and trends, such as the decline of oil revenues in Arab Muslim nations, correlate with the power of American-based Islamic organizations? Will the freedom of and from religion in America result in more Muslims ultimately secularizing and assimilating, as has happened on a grand scale with Jews? If so, how should the Jewish community relate to it? Will the future bring more confrontation as the larger Muslim constituency senses strength in numbers, or will it create greater opportunities for them to learn from the more established Jews or even set an example for Muslims worldwide in interacting with the “People of the Book”?

The prejudice towards the American Muslim community is so clearly expressed throughout this document, and in this conclusion that it is impossible to see this as anything except anti-Muslim propaganda.

UPDATE 10/25/2012

TAM has just published Israeli Apartheid topic of serious discussion in Israel about a recent Israeli poll conducted by Dialog, and commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund (New Israel Fund). It would seem that unless the authors of the JCPA report want to call Jewish Israeli’s anti-Semites, they may have to reconsider their suggestion that the use of the term “apartheid” casts aspersions on American Muslim organizations.