Islamic radicalization' hearing stirs hornets' nest

Congress holds hundreds of hearings each year — and most generate more yawns than fireworks.

But the plan to hold hearings on the danger posed by radical Islam in the United States has inspired protest, counterprotest, debate, editorials, petitions and even pray-ins, before the first witness takes the stand.

The goal of the hearings, the first of which is being held Thursday, is "to establish and show the American people that there is a real threat of al-Qaida recruiting and of homegrown terrorists being self-radicalized within the Muslim community," according to Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the new chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

He also charges that Muslim Americans are not doing enough to discourage extremists in their midst.

Opponents say King is stoking anti-Islam hysteria at a time when the Muslim American community is already besieged by attacks on mosques, hate crimes and overzealous surveillance by law enforcement.

Many have compared these proceedings to the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, which fed on fears of Communist subversion.

But King has not budged. He accused critics of being in deep denial of the threat, chiding them for seeking some sort of "kumbaya moment" with extremists and vowing not to bow to what he calls "political correctness."

Now the question is whether the hearings will produce a more secure nation or further alienate the roughly 2.5 million Muslims living in the country.

Check back for streaming video, live reporting and commentary on the hearing

"I think it's legitimate to hold hearings on any aspect of radicalization, and I'm not dismissing these hearings out of hand," said Charles Kurzman, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "At the same time, I would be concerned if an intentionally provocative approach to the hearings reduces cooperation with Muslim American communities, which is the opposite of Congress' intention."

'Going after radicals' Proponents of the hearings insist that they are but one security discussion among many — in this case focused on young Muslim men who become radicalized and then pursue terror plots — not about all who practice the faith.

"He's not going after mainstream Muslims," said Steve Emerson,  executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, who has long warned about the danger posed by home-grown terrorists. "He's going after radicals."

But many Muslims, as well as leaders of other religious and legal advocates, reject the premise of the discussion — that Islam can be singled out as more prone to engender radicalization and violent extremism than other religions.

"By framing his hearings as an investigation of the American Muslim community, the implication is that we should be suspicious of our Muslim neighbors, co-workers or classmates solely on the basis of their religion," Rep. Michael Honda, D-Calif., wrote in a Feb. 28 op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle.

He compared the move to the roundup of Japanese Americans during World War II that led to the three-year internment of his own family. Many civil rights groups also say the hearings set a disturbing precedent.

A coalition of 50 human and civil rights groups, religious organizations and Muslim advocacy groups appealed to King to cancel the hearings or frame them to look at all forms of violence motivated by extremist beliefs, but he rejected their call. 

"Congress should not be focused on First Amendment-protected beliefs and activities," said Farhana Khera, executive director of the San Francisco-based Muslim Advocates. "To the extent that you have Congress exploring violent extremism, it should be focused on criminal behavior. … What faith somebody practices or whatever variant someone practices would not be the proper scope for congressional review."

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sent a letter sent to King on Tuesday urging him to "reconsider holding the narrowly focused and reckless hearings."

King and Muslims in his Long Island district say the congressman used to be a champion of the Muslim community, visiting mosques and attending their weddings and dinners. He was also one of a handful of Republicans who supported efforts to protect Muslims in the Balkans from aggression by Serbian Orthodox Christians.

But the congressman says he became bitterly disillusioned after 9-11, when some of the local imams rejected the idea that Muslims were behind the devastating attacks.

'Moral myopia' They later recanted and denounced terrorism, but for King the events unveiled the "moral myopia … of the Muslim leaders and their apologists in the media."

In op-ed piece in Newsday, the congressman describes his transformation.

King argues that the threat from Muslims in the U.S. has increased because anti-terrorism measures overseas have made it more difficult for al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations to attack the United States from abroad. As a consequence, he says, the terrorists are now focusing on indoctrinating American Muslims to carry out attacks.

In an interview with NBC's Meredith Vieira on the TODAY show, King defended his belief, telling the anchor, "this is the same message that president's deputy national security advisor gave the other night. He said that al-Qaida has changed its strategy and it is now attempting to recruit and radicalize the Muslim American community. That's where the threat is coming from."

United States to parents from Yemen.

He points to recent plots: The failed Times Square bombing and the Fort Hood massacre, which were perpetrated by American Muslims influenced by Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in the 

After coming under scrutiny by U.S. authorities for contacts with suspected terrorists, including several of the 9/11 hijackers, he moved to Yemen in 2002 and began broadcasting his extremist views over the Internet.

Nidal Hassan, the Army major accused of shooting to death 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, was a U.S. citizen born in the United States to parents who emigrated from Jordan. Although Hassan had exchanged email with al-Awlaki, experts have said he acted on his own.

Faisal Shahzad, who admitted attempting to detonate a car full of explosives in New York’s Times Square, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Pakistan. Shahzad trained with terrorist groups in Pakistan but told authorities that he was inspired by al-Awlaki through the Internet.

King maintains that 80 to 85 percent of mosques in the United States are led by fundamental Islamists — a figure that is broadly disputed — and thus set the stage for radicalization of young Muslims.

The Prophet as a social activist

SOCIAL activism by citizens is often looked upon as a modern-day phenomenon. What is not commonly known is that the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) started his social activism in his youth, much before his declaration of prophethood.
The deeds of the Prophet, even before that time, were in accordance with his noble character and the teachings which he later received. One of the major aims of his career was social reform. Even before Islam, the rite of Haj was observed at the Kaaba, and war was forbidden in that sacred month.
Once when this ban was violated and a visiting tribe’s members were looted and their local protector killed, a war broke out.
The war ended according to an agreement known as the Hilf-al-Fudul. According to M. Akhtar Muslim, in Quran aur Insani Huquq (‘The Quran and human rights’), around the year 586 CE, another trader visiting Makkah was deprived of his goods without being paid. He cried out for help. With regard to this, Dr M. Hamidullah writes in Muhammad Rasulullah (‘Muhammad the Prophet of Allah’) that Al-Zubair, the head of the Prophet’s family, convened a meeting. In this meeting, in which the Prophet took part as a young man, it was decided to bring a group into action under the revived Hilf-al-Fudul.
According to some scholars ‘fadal’ also means ‘right’, the plural of which is ‘fudul’. Therefore, one of the meanings of this could be, ‘the agreement for the protection of rights’. The group’s activists pledged to come to the help of anyone who had been wronged in Makkah, without discrimination, to favour the weak and downtrodden against their powerful persecutors. The tribes of Taim, Zuhra, Muttalib and Hashim took the oath for this agreement.
The important objectives and clauses of the Hilf-al-Fudul were as follows: lawlessness would be done away with; security of the travellers and newcomers would be ensured; victims of cruelty would be helped regardless of whether they were residents of Makkah or visitors; and the powerful persecutors would be stopped from being unjust to the weak. Dr M. Hamidullah in Rasul-i-Akram ki Siyasi Zindagi (‘The political life of the Prophet’) describes the oath as: “We swear by God that we will together become one (strong) hand. This hand will remain by the side of the weak and will continue to be raised against the strong and the unjust until the persecutor returns to the persecuted his right. This will remain so until the sea keeps the seashells wet and the hills of Hira and Thabir remain in their place. There will be equity in our society.”
The last sentence can mean that even the most humble of citizens would be able to challenge and demand redress from the most powerful. Only a handful of tribes participated in the Hilf-al-Fudul, yet it was a revolutionary agreement, the fundamental principle being non-alliance. Previously, all help had been given on the basis of tribes and the pacts made with them.
In this pact, it had been agreed that anyone and everyone who had been wronged, could ask for help. They went so far as to say that even those strangers and travellers who belonged neither to Makkah nor to any of its tribes would be eligible for help.
Previously, travellers were an open target for persecution. Not only were they robbed, but often their wives and daughters were taken away from them forcibly.
Another reason for its being a revolutionary agreement was that the Hilf-al-Fudul was not based on social class. Anyone who had been wronged, whether he was a free person or a slave, rich or poor, was eligible for help. Through this agreement, to a large extent Makkah became safe for the weak, the persecuted and strangers. The activists, acting with great speed, saw to it that the person who had been wronged was given back all that had been taken away from him forcibly.
Very soon, powerful thugs, including Abu Jahal, started to fear reprisal from the activists. The Makkans can be truly proud of the fact that at the time when the whole world was steeped in darkness and injustice, these conscientious activists were able to provide free protection and justice to the weak and the helpless through their humanistic ideals. In trying to create some kind of law and order in Makkah, the activists of the Hilf-al-Fudul were really helping to formulate some laws based on the concept of modern-day human rights. Dr M. Hamidullah says that the law of Islam in its early phase was the customary law of Makkah until such time as parts of it were specifically amended or abrogated. The principles of the Hilf-al-Fudul can safely be said to be a part of the law of Islam.
Even though many of the participants of the agreement remained non-Muslim, the Prophet kept acting on it after his declaration of Islam. He is reported to have said later: “Even if red camels were given to me in exchange for the Hilf-al-Fudul, I would not accept them.” This agreement can also be looked upon as the beginning of the attempt to codify laws and enforce a policing system with the objective of establishing peace and equity through practical social activism.
The pact also gives Muslims a precedent for the moral responsibility of all citizens to protect the weak and to speak for them, to critique the rulers and the powerful and the concept of establishing citizens’ groups that advocate and lobby for social rights.
The writer is a scholar of the Quran and writes on its relevance to contemporary issues.