By Supna Zaidi
Despite repeated reports connecting organizations like CAIR, ISNA, and MAS to anti-Americanism, Islamism and even terrorism, they remain the go-to groups for the "Muslim perspective" in the mainstream media.
The media, like most government agencies, have fallen for the Islamist line, "its not us, its you," so whenever there is a suicide attack in Pakistan or Iraq; or a massacre in the US by a self-professed soldier of Allah, it is not the fault of the murderers, only America's.
The left is predisposed to accept this argument given their stereotyped image: mistrust of the "establishment", anti-globalization/capitalist tendencies, and romanticized understanding of foreign cultures. The latter blinds them to true human rights violations under the guise of cultural relativism. The left has, thus, condescendingly reduced the "Muslim world" to nothing but weak, passive children. Root causes like poverty and illiteracy are the only reasons jihadis "act out."
This ignores the agendas of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East, Abu Sayyef in the Philippines, and numerous independent organizations throughout South Asia, and even the AKP of Turkey. Though the latter isn't violent, the AKP is anti-secular. All of the above want to implement Islamic law in their own nations, and otherwise, continue to push for "Muslim causes" internationally.
Osama is a billionaire. The 9/11 perpetrators came from upper middle class families. Hamas may manipulate the poor, but its leadership and financial supporters are well to-do. Thus, when Hamas attacks, its not because it is poor. It is because they have a political agenda. They would like Israel to remove itself from the region, or be so marginalized physically or demographically, that it is a nation in name only. Groups, like Hamas, lobby in the West through organizations that purport to be Muslim civil rights groups blurring regional politics with global religious issues. Thus, making the 9/11 world a clash of civilizations not because Samuel Huntington made it so, but because they did. Yet, the western media falls for the singular condescending image of victimhood that Islamists sell.
Islamist organizations in the US cleverly work within this rhetoric so their cause may appeal to moderates and liberals. By co-opting civil rights history and minority rights activism, Islamists play up fears of anti-Muslim backlash to censor debate over their political agenda abroad and at home. Anyone that dares to examine their activities is branded an Islamophobe. CAIR and ISNA are particularly guilty of this. See here, and here.
Western media has bought the Islamist worldview, where its censorship of a real debate on these issues promotes the Islamist message of, "America is out to get Muslims." After the Mumbai attacks last year, Larry King had Deepak Chopra on, who went on and on about preventing a Muslim backlash, without even addressing the unique history of Islamist terrorism in South Asia. After the Fort Hood massacre, psychological profiling of Nidal Hasan absolved him of his crimes, before all the victims had been counted.
In 2008, CNN erroneously entitled an online article on filmmaker Imran Raza's Karachi Kids, "Terror school turns out to be a moderate madrassa" simply because of one factual error, ignoring Raza's point that extremism is not simply about teaching violence. It is about indoctrination towards a worldview where children are taught to hate America, Jews, and hate anyone that isn't an orthodox Muslim like them. Raza states:
"I think that what we're dealing with, which is the more important issue here, is that you have this madrassa, and the leader of this madrassa taking advantage of people who are naive and bringing the boys into an environment where clearly there's so many different levels of what I call reengineering,"
Nidal Hasan is a product of this indoctrination. So is the Saudi national, Abdulsalam Al-Zahrani, who killed a Binghamton professor this month. He had made comments prior to the killing to his roommates that he wanted to destroy the world and that he was being persecuted because he was Muslim. Financial problems aside, where do men like Hasan and Salam get their sense of persecution from? Neither Islamist rhetoric, nor the media give men like this any other option. And what is worse, when they do act out, it is not because of Islam, but because of their unique psychological flaws.
Which begs the question - who is winning the war against terrorism and why?
Clearly, the Islamists are winning. The media legitimizes organizations like CAIR, and ISNA, invites their representatives onto mainstream American media, ignoring the fact that they espouse the very ideology that creates men like Hasan Nidal. With mainstream media legitimacy, Islamists become the "experts" for our law enforcement, city officials, and national government. Recent examples of Islamist-governmental co-mingling include:
1. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial is invited to a mayoral event in NYC,
2. Louay Safi of ISNA invites himself onto Ft. Hood after the massacre to give money to victims' families,
3. Dalia Mogahed, a presidential appointment, sits with Hizbut ul Tahrir on a radio show, defending Sharia,
4. ISNA President, Ingrid Mattson, represents Muslims at President Obama's interfaith breakfast upon his inauguration,
5. MAS influence on the Minnesota Airport Commission to allow Islamic law to trump American law, by permitting Somali cab drivers to discriminate against passengers carrying alcohol in a state where it is otherwise legal. Later repealed by anti-Islamist activism through Islamist Watch.
Marginalizing Islamist influence in the US must begin with the media. Once they do not have an outlet, the government will not be so willing to identify with them without embarrassment.
(Supna Zaidi is assistant director of Islamist Watch, a project at the Middle East Forum and editor of Muslim World Today.)
