by Sheila Musaji
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
— LANGUAGE MATTERSREP. KING’S BACKGROUND
— GENERAL POLITICAL VIEWS
— REP. KING’S IRA/TERRORIST CONNECTION
— HOW DOES REP. KING ENVISION THE FORMAT, SCOPE & FUNCTION OF THIS HEARING
WITNESSES
— VIEWS ON ISLAM AND MUSLIMS
— KING’S INFORMATION SOURCES & COLLEAGUES
— THE LINKAGE WITH THE ANTI-SHARIA MOVEMENTANALYZING KING’S CLAIMS
— CLAIM THAT MUSLIMS DON’T SPEAK OUT AGAINST TERRORISM AND EXTREMISM IS A LIE
— CLAIM THAT MOST TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS IS A LIE
— Claim that AMERICAN MUSLIM’S HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO RADICALIZATION IS A LIE
— PERCENTAGE OF RADICAL MOSQUES CLAIM IS A LIE
— CLAIM ABOUT MEANING OF POLL IS A LIE
— CLAIM THAT MUSLIMS DON’T COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT IS A LIEREACTION TO REP. KING’S PROPOSED HEARINGS
LIST OF RELEVANT REPORTS & STUDIES
REP. KING’S RESPONSE TO CRITICISM
WHAT YOU CAN DO
CONCLUSIONSEE ALSO: articles on this issue
Rep. Peter King plans to hold a Congressional inquiry into American Muslim “radicalization” in his new position as Chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
This has been seen as a flashback to McCarthy’s witchhunt, and a witch trial, and even political violence. Whether or not this inquiry would benefit anyone has been debated by the right and the left.
As an American Muslim, when I look at Rep. King’s background and previous statements, it seems to me that Rep. King is an Islamophobe, and that what he is proposing is not an attack on radicals (of whatever persuasion) but an attack on American Muslims in general. I am very concerned about where this might take us as a nation, and will follow this developing story and provide updates.
What makes this all the more concerning is a recent Washington Post article “Top Secret America” which includes the information that “‘Top Secret America’ includes hundreds of federal departments and agencies operating out of 1300 facilities around this country. Thirty-three new building complexes have been built for intelligence bureaucracies alone, occupying 17 million square feet-the equivalent of 22 U.S. Capitols or three Pentagons. Five miles southeast of the White House, the largest government site in 50 years is being built-at a cost of $3.4 billion-to house the largest bureaucracy after the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Department of Homeland Security, which has a workforce of 230,000 people. With nearly 2,000 private companies that are sub contracted in all, there are now 850,000 Americans with top secret clearance.” The Department of Homeland Security to the extent that it is influenced by people like Rep. King may limit our civil rights. As Javeed Akhter has pointed out: Few are aware of the magnitude of this secret intel. It is legitimate worry that parts of an operation this large and diverse and secret may get out of hand and start affecting civil liberties of all Americans. I am not aware of any congressional hearings on it. Also no moral authority in or out of office has taken on the media for their reckless stereotyping of Muslim Americans.
Also of concern is the fact that the hearings according to a page on the Homeland Security Committee website, are to be called Hearings on Islamic Radicalization. The title makes it clear that this is not a question of how to prevent some Muslims from becoming radicalized, but rather what it is about Islam itself that leads to radicalization.
Originally, these hearings were slated to begin in February, but the date now being mentioned is March 10th.
UPDATE: Rep. King has now held five hearings. Here is the TAM article collection discussing every aspect of those hearings:
On TAM we have published a number of articles on Rep. Peter King’s Hearings and related U.S. government and military hearings and training that most American Muslims consider to be Islamophobic: TAM has an article The American Muslim Community and Rep. Peter King’s “Islamic” Radicalization Hearings which has a great deal of background on Peter King and these hearings, which includes an extensive article collection. We also have a series of articles breaking down various aspects of the hearings.
- Peter King’s Hearing: What Was the Point? discussing the content of the hearings, with a collection of articles written after the hearing ended.
- Peter King’s Civics Lesson for American Muslims which has a collection of anti-Muslim statements by elected representatives and government officials made during and before the hearings.
- Existing reports and studies on radicalization in the American Muslim Community and Polls, Surveys, and Statistics Relating to Islam and Muslims with actual hard evidence so lacking in the hearing.
- Response of Civic Organizations and Interfaith Community to “Muslim Radicalization” Hearings
- Elected Representatives & Government Officials Who HAVE Questioned Islamophobia with quotes from elected representatives and government officials attempting to counter the bias of this hearing both during and before the hearing.
- Peter King’s hearing: witness testimonies - allegations but no facts
- Peter King’s Fourth Hearing Targets Muslims in the Military
- Peter King’s Fifth Hearing With “Astroturf” Muslim Witnesses
- Zuhdi Jasser and AIFD - Identified by Rep. King as the Ideal American Muslim Leadership
- Does Rep. King’s IRA/Terrorist Connection Matter?
- Answers to Peter King’s Claims About the American Muslim Community which lays out all of his claims and allegations and provides detailed answers to each. (e.g. Do Muslims cooperate with law enforcement? Do Muslims speak out against terrorism and extremism? Are most Muslims terrorists? Are 80 to 85% of mosques run by radicals? Have American Muslim organizations responded to the issue of radicalization? Are mosques the source of radicalization? etc.)
- The scope of Rep. Kings Hearings Creates Homeland “in"Security
- National Faith Leaders to Protest Anti-Muslim Hearings
- Rep. Peter King’s Muslim Phobia
- Claim that all terrorists are Muslims ignores history
- The NYPD, the CIA, and “The Third Jihad”
- Islamophobia no longer questioned - even by our elected representatives
- GOP Anti-Muslim Limbo: They’ve Lowered the Bar Again!
- The GOP Anti-Muslim Limbo: How Low Can They Go?
- White House Releases “New” Counter-terrorism Strategy: Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States
- Where is the U.S. Government Getting It’s Information on Islam and Muslims?
All of these articles will be updated as further information comes in, and there will be more articles in this series.
What the hearings are called and the language used really do matter. The U.S. Government recently issued a statement asking that government officials be cautious in their use of language as it may actually be against the interests of the U.S. to use terms that connect the religion of Islam with the acts of criminals. The governments suggests the use of more accurate and non-inflammatory language. A recent Homeland Security Report even sharply rebuked John McCain’s ‘Islamic Extremism’ rhetoric.
In 2008, the U.S. State Department approved new counterterrorism lexicon for diplomats. The report, “WORDS THAT WORK AND WORDS THAT DON’T: A GUIDE FOR COUNTERTERRORISM COMMUNICATION” offers specific directives, such as: don’t use terms such as “jihadist” or “holy warrior” because it legitimizes bin Laden’s followers, but also don’t use terms such as “Islamo-fascism,” which offends everyone else by associating Islam with fascism. You can view the full report here. UPI reports “Urging officials not to use the word Islam in conjunction with terrorism, the guide notes that, “Although the al-Qaida network exploits religious sentiments and tries to use religion to justify its actions, we should treat it as an illegitimate political organization, both terrorist and criminal.” Instead of calling terror groups Muslim or Islamic, the guide suggests using words like totalitarian, terrorist or violent extremist—“widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy.”
A report entitled TERMINOLOGY TO DEFINE THE TERRORISTS: RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AMERICAN MUSLIMS was considered by the State Department in preparing their report. The PDF of this document can be read . From the conclusion of this report: “Words matter. The terminology the USG uses should convey the magnitude of the threat we face, but also avoid inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of the extremists’ ideology. Instead, USG terminology should depict the terrorists as the dangerous cult leaders they are. They have no honor, they have no dignity, and they offer no answers. While acknowledging that they have the capacity to destroy, we should constantly emphasize that they cannot build societies, and do not provide solutions to the problems people across the globe face.”
As Salam al-Marayati of MPAC has said Dropping religious labels] denies Al-Qaeda and its affiliates the religious legitimacy they severely lack and so desperately seek. For years, Muslim public opinion has decisively turned against Bin Ladin, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups because of the immoral, unethical and gruesome tactics they employ and because the vast majority of their victims have been other Muslims. ... one of our strategic goals should be to empower the authentic and mainstream Muslim voices that are working on a daily basis to counter the cult of death, which groups such as Al-Qaeda call to. By removing religious labels from describing the terrorists, we empower and embolden those mainstream voices and deny the terrorists from making a religious claim. This is precisely why in 2008 a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) internal memo circulated amongst government agencies directed government officials and diplomatic staff to consider the implications of using “Islamic” language when discussing terrorism-related issues.
REP. KING’S BACKGROUND
King wants Wikileaks designated as a terrorist organization.
King supports torture of Guantanamo detainees.
On the Laura Ingraham radio program, King was asked what would have happened if Jared Loughner had been a Muslim, and he responded: “The first statement [from the left after past instances of Islamic terror] was we have no right to judge an entire community by one person. This is a deranged gunman who in no way reflects what Islam stands for, and it would be terrible if Americans tried to even look at Islam as being responsible for this. It would have been a total defense of Islam, a total isolation of this person as an individual acting by himself, and an implied attack on anyone that would even question whether or not his religious beliefs were involved.” Perhaps he needs to speak with Sarah Palin about her attack on anyone that would even question whether or not inflammatory rhetoric might encourage violence, and why only the deranged gunman is responsible.
King wants to eliminate the Dept. of Education. He wants to privatize Social Security. He wants to consider ending birthright citizenship. He wants to repeal Health Care reform. He did not support the balanced budget amendment. He voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and YES on making Patriot Act permanent. You can see his Congressional voting record here. You can see his record on civil rights here.
3/8/11 Ben Smith reports on an interesting historical note on that point: King actually worked with McCarthy counsel Roy Cohn when he was a young lawyer. King confimed to me just now that he worked with Cohn for about 18 months at the firm Saxe, Bacon & Bolan, where Cohn maintained an extremely aggressive private practice. King didn’t have much to say about Cohn, but he dismissed the historical reference.
REP. KING’S IRA/TERRORIST CONNECTION
This section has been made into a separate article — Does Rep. King’s IRA/Terrorist Connection Matter? . This article has a great deal of information on King and the IRA and how this relates to his position as Chair of the Congressional Homeland Security Committee and to the American Muslim community.
HOW DOES REP. KING ENVISION THE FORMAT, SCOPE & FUNCTION OF THIS HEARING
On the function of the Department of Homeland Security, King said: “The department was set up primarily to protect us from another terrorist attack from Islamic terrorists, and yet they talk about everything but that.”
I am sorry Rep. King, but I expect the Dept. of Homeland Security to attempt to protect us from terrorist attacks from all sources, and since the overwhelming majority of terrorists are not Muslims, this statement gives me no peace of mind.”
SCOPE
A just released MPAC statement includes the following: “Rep. Peter King should heed the words of the former House Homeland Security Committee chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, who stated that “the chairman of the committee now talks about the Muslim threat, but there is the threat of homegrown terrorists who could be members of some hate group, Klan associated, Aryan Nation associated, or just something they dream up.” Rep. King should expand the scope of his hearing to include the Tucson tragedy to ensure that we truly are seeking to solve the problem of violent extremism in our nation.”
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D.-Miss), the ranking member on the Homeland Security Comittee published an article in Politico, where he lends caution to the “Peter King Hearings” that are scheduled to begin soon to examine home grown terrorism solely in the context of terrorists claiming to be Muslim. He claims this is too narrow a focus and urges Congress and the public to expand their focus on terrorism beyond race and religion. Here are a few quotes from Rep. Thompson’s article: “Today’s terrorists do not share a particular ethnic, educational or socioeconomic background. Recently, when state law enforcement agencies were asked to identify terror groups in their states, Muslim extremist groups ranked 11th on a list of 18. ... And what do von Brunn and Loughner have in common with Muslim extremists like Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, and Colleen LaRose, also known as Jihad Jane? All allegedly espoused radical views on the Internet through extremist websites, chat rooms and popular sites like Facebook. This starkly illustrates what should be common sense: The most effective means of identifying terrorists is through their behavior — not ethnicity, race or religion. ... Devoting all of our assets to investigate only the Muslim community leaves a gaping hole in our security. Holding hearings is not only likely to increase the level of government mistrust within the community, but it will weaken counterterrorism cooperation by ignoring the long history of Muslim cooperation. Poisoning this relationship through inquisition-style hearings would substantially risk losing this crucial cooperation. We must maximize our efforts to counter violent extremism, radicalization and recruitment in the United States, and stop using xenophobia and ethnic stereotyping. If we are going to move forward and protect this nation, we must recognize trends in terrorist activity.”
Rep. King rejected a call by a key Democrat to expand a hearing on the radicalization of U.S. Muslims to include other homegrown threats after the Arizona rampage in January.
According to a new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, a solid majority of Americans think it’s a better idea to broaden such hearings so they don’t single out Muslims. Greg Sargent notes it’s true that a majority, 56 percent, thinks hearings into Muslim extremism is a good idea. But a far larger majority, 72 percent, thinks the hearings shouldn’t single out just Muslim extremism. So the first number may largely reflect the public’s desire to reckon with extremism in any form. What’s more, this suggests that the public is rejecting one of the most basic of assumptions underlying King’s push for hearings: That broadening the focus beyond Muslims risks sending some kind of self-defeating message that we aren’t overly preoccupied with the threat of Islamic extremism. King himself has been very explicit on this point. But it appears the public disagrees.
Rep. King has consistently rejected any calls for expanding the scope of the hearings to include radicalization generally.
WITNESSES
This section became lengthy with both pre-hearing rumors about possible witnesses, and then actual hearing witnesses, their testimony, and responses to that testimony. The information is all collected in two articles - Zuhdi Jasser and AIFD - Identified by Rep. King as the Ideal American Muslim Leadership and Peter King’s hearing: witness testimonies - allegations but no facts
National Review Online obtained the WITNESS LIST set to appear at the opening of Rep. Peter King’s hearings on radicalization within the American Muslim community: Abdirizak Bihi, the brother of Burhan Hassan’s mother ; Melvin Bledsoe, the father of Carlos Bledsoe (Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad); Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, an Arizona physician and military veteran; Lee Baca, the sheriff of Los Angeles County; Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.); Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.). These are only the six initial witnesses. We do not yet know who else will be called in future hearings, but since the hearings are planned to go on for a year and a half, there will certainly be many more than these six.
In our TAM article collection Islamophobia no longer questioned - even by our elected representatives, Rep. King is only of those quoted as saying alarming things about Islam and Muslims. However, his current position makes his statements much more of a concern.
King said that there are “Too Many Mosques” in the U.S.”
King said “The enemy is Islamic terrorism. It’s not an amorphous extremism….It’s Islamic terrorism which opposes the very fiber of what we stand for”
King made comments suggesting that American Muslims don’t cooperate with authorities. He said “85 percent of American Muslim community leaders are an enemy living amongst us” and that “no (American) Muslims cooperate in the war on terror”. Back in 2004 King said on the Sean Hannity program “I would say, you could say that 80-85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists…Those who are in control. lThe average Muslim, no, they are loyal, but they don’t work, they don’t come forward, they don’t tell the police.” In 2006 King, sent two letters to several thousand, mainly Jewish, constituents in New York’s 3rd Congressional District. The letters condemn American Muslim leaders, including those at ICLI, for “failing to unequivocally denounce Islamic terrorism.” The letters also point out that leaders of ICLI, a Westbury-based mosque founded in 1985, are supporting King’s Democratic opponent in the upcoming election.
He has been a vocal opponent of the Cordoba House. King said regarding Cordoba House “It’s a house of worship, but we are at war with Al Qaeda.”
Unless you believe that all Muslims are somehow supportive of or connected with Al Qaeda, that is one colossal non sequitur. Most Muslims are at war with Al Qaeda.
In 2004, King said: “The fact is while the overwhelming majority of Muslims are outstanding people, on the other hand 100% of the Islamic terrorists are Muslims, and that is our main enemy today.” King used this inane comment to back his support of profiling of Muslims.
This is a meanlingless comment. Of course 100% of Muslim terrorists are Muslims. The question is, what does King plan to do about the majority of terrorists - who are not Muslims?
King made questionable comments about the Islamic Center of Long Island.
Rep. King said On Frank Gaffney’s radio program on January 11th that Muslims Aren’t ‘American’ When It Comes To War. King’s willingness to appear on Gaffney’s program may say something about King’s biases. As Sarah Posner notes: “Gaffney has been peddling the bogus claim that shari’ah law represents a real threat to the Constitution, and has called on Congress to “investigate” that as well. He employs someone who believes being Muslim should be criminalized. He brought that dog and pony show to Capitol Hill late last year for the benefit of House staffers, and spoke to a room of about 50 people. It surely is a deeply troubling development that King is cavorting with Gaffney and pontificating about the “Americanism” of American Muslims, in light of Gaffney’s agitation about fifth columns of shari’ah proponents bent on undermining the Constitution.” More on Gaffney and his Center for Security Policy Sharia report here, here, here.
Lee Fang at ThinkProgress has noted that even the Conservative Political Action Conference has frozen out King’s interviewer, Frank Gaffney, for being a “crazy bigot.” Gaffney Still Fearmongering About Sharia In U.S. here
KING’S INFORMATION SOURCES & COLLEAGUES
When asked where he gets his information about Muslims King mentions doubtful sources: “Hannity asked King to confirm he was saying 85 percent of mosques in America are “ruled by the extremists.” “Yes,” he replied, “and I can get you the documentation on that from experts in the field. Talk to a Steve Emerson, talk to a [Daniel] Pipes, talk to any of those. They will tell you. It’s a real issue … . I’ll stand by that number of 85 percent. This is an enemy living amongst us.” (More on Emerson here and here and a number of responses to Emerson here. Numerous responses to Daniel Pipes’ claims here. Emerson was offended that King would not call him as a witness)
Rep. King defended Pamela Geller and called her a “credible spokesperson”. (More on Geller here, here, and here)
According to ACT for America’s Orlando site: “The many Senators and Congressman & Women who support Act for America (e.g. Michelle Bachman, Peter King, Sue Myrick, Bozeman, Franks who spoke to us at our National Convention in D.C. this past month.” More on Sue Myrick and ACT here. More on the The Anti-Muslim Congressional Mafia here. More on Brigitte Gabrielle, the head of ACT here and here. Many have questioned whether ACT is educating or fear mongering.
Regarding the Iraq War King said: “We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to account for his weapons of mass destruction, consistently violated UN resolutions and in a post-9/11 world no American president could afford to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt.”
It has been announced that Rep. Peter King will be the first guest on Brigitte Gabriel’s Act for America’s new television program.
I don’t believe that it is possible for King to send a clearer message about his intentions for the upcoming inquiry. Every American Muslim should get ready for that “Are you now, or have you ever been, a Muslim” question. Let’s just hope that those Halliburton Internment Camps aren’t being refurbished. Here’s a little background on Act for America and it’s founder, Brigitte Gabriel who said “If a Muslim who has—who is—a practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah, who abides by Islam, who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a day—this practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America.” Brigitte Gabriel has also stated: “America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam.” She also said “between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism and also said of the “Arabic world,” that they “have no soul.” She said “a practising Muslim who goes to mosque every Friday, prays five times a day, and who believes that the Koran is the word of God, and who believes that Mohammed is the perfect man and (four inaudible words) is a radical Muslim.” She said If you want to understand the nature of the enemy we face, visualize a tapestry of snakes. They slither and they hiss, and they would eat each other alive, but they will unite in a hideous mass to achieve their common goal of imposing Islam on the world. This is the ugly face of the enemy we are fighting.” More on Gabriel here, here, here, here, and here.
THE LINKAGE WITH THE ANTI-SHARIA MOVEMENT
It looks as if more of our elected representatives are jumping on the anti-Muslim bandwagon. This week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) joined the growing chorus of Republicans clamoring for hearings to look into the threat of “creeping Sharia law.” Appearing on Frank Gaffney’s radio show (Gaffney is of course the chief architect of the “creeping Sharia” threat), Gohmert told the host he hoped they would “have some hearings” and that he would “be pushing for them”. (Rep. Gohmert previously warned of a plot to breed terrorist babies who will one day attack America. This goes right along with the Muslim demographics conspiracy theory which I call the dumbest Muslim plot ever.
Gaffney appears to have a lot of influence among the Republicans in Congress. Back in September, Gaffney, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, and others held a news conference on Capitol Hill to release a report on Muslim religious law entitled “Shariah: The Threat to America.” That document alleges that Muslim adherents to Shariah law are categorically “making a determined, sustained, and well-financed effort to impose it on all Muslims and non-Muslims, alike.” State Rep. Leo Berman (author of his state’s birther bill) has introduced legislation to ban Sharia law from being used in Texas courts. Rep. Rex Duncan (R-OK), Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), State Rep. Gerald Gay (R-WY), Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), State Rep. Wendy Nanney (R-SC), Sen. Mike Fair(R-SC), State Rep. Bruce Borders (R-IN), Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Ernest Wooten (R-LA), State Rep. Bruce Borders (R-IN) are among those who have supported anti-Sharia legislation.
Many States are considering anti-Sharia legislation. Although Oklahoma’s law is the first to come under court scrutiny, legislators in at least thirteen states, including Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah, have proposed similar laws, the National Conference of State Legislatures says. Tennessee and Louisiana have enacted versions of the law banning use of foreign law under certain circumstances. Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House, is pushing for a federal law that “clearly and unequivocally states that we’re not going to tolerate any imported law.” (South Carolina, Indiana, Texas, Wyoming, Alaska, Georgia, Nebraska, Utah, and other states have individuals pushing to bring this issue to a vote. Wyoming judges wouldn’t be allowed to consider Islamic law or international law when making rulings, under a proposed state constitutional amendment introduced in Jan 2011.) Wyoming has fewer than 300 Muslims living within its borders which makes their concern with this non-issue laughable.
Halal food is the focus of another anti-Sharia movement. Stephen Colbert highlights the “dangers” of eating “Muslim food”. As Loonwatch reports, Pat Robertson is once again at the forefront of this non-issue along with Pamela Geller. Bryan Fisher of the American Family Association wrote an article calling Campbell’s halal soups Sharia in a can and saying: “Sharia law is no longer creeping up on us. It’s bearing down on us at full gallop. It’s time for Christian civilization to grab the reins of this runaway horse and stop it dead in its tracks. No Sharia law in America, period.”
ANALYZING KING’S CLAIMS
Claim that MUSLIMS DON’T SPEAK OUT AGAINST EXTREMISM AND TERRORISM is a lie
HAVE MUSLIM LEADERS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS FAILED TO UNEQUIVOCALLY DENOUNCE TERRORISM, EXTREMISM AND AL QAEDA?
All anyone has to do is go to The American Muslim homepage, click on the Muslims Denounce Terrorism Logo at the top of the page, and you will see a huge list of Muslim condemnations of terrorism and extremism, fatwas by Islamic scholars, statements by Muslim organizations, statements by individuals, statements by leaders of the American Muslim community, etc. There is no excuse for not knowing about the fact that hundreds of community leaders and scholars and every recognized national organization have issued strong statements.
American Muslims have spoken out loudly and frequently, but are mostly ignored. It seems that we are invisible as far as the mainstream press is concerned.
DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee on the issue of radicalization and said “It is critical that we recognize that American Muslims have been, and will continue to be, a highly valued part of the fabric of our Nation. American Muslims have been outspoken in their opposition to terrorist violence and have been strong contributors to our country for many generations.”
CLAIM THAT MOST TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS IS A LIE
TAM has a lengthy article collection [url=http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/claim_that_all_terrorists_are_muslims_ignores_history/]Claim that all terrorists are Muslims ignores h