by Raymond Ibrahim<\/p>\n
Hudson New York<\/em><\/p>\n From Congressman\u00a0Keith Ellison’s<\/a>\u00a0emotional breakdown to CongresswomanJackie Speier’s<\/a>\u00a0accusations of “racism,” the hearings on Muslim radicalization have made it clear that those who oppose the hearings have little of substance to offer. Still, the tactics used by such apologists \u2014 namely, appeals to emotionalism and accusations of racism \u2014 are influential enough that they need to be addressed and discredited once and for all.<\/p>\n For starters, though it would have been unheard of generations ago and seen as a sign of instability, public crying is the latest rage for politicians. A 2007Associated Press<\/a>\u00a0report puts it well: “Tears, once kryptonite to serious presidential candidates, today are more often seen as a useful part of the political tool kit” \u2014 and are thus indicative of an increasingly therapeutic society, one more interested in a show of catharsis than facts.<\/p>\n Yet, tears aside, if we wish to be objective for a moment, Ellison’s testimony \u2014 culminating with his choking up and leaving the hearing \u2014 contributes nothing to the topic of Muslim radicalization in America. Instead, it raises more questions about Ellison \u2014 a former Nation of Islam leader, mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood front-group CAIR, and\u00a0critic<\/a>\u00a0of the US Constitution.<\/p>\n Indeed, arguing that “suit-and-tie” Islamists have penetrated Western societies and are manipulating the legal system to their advantage \u2014 including by imposing aspects of Islamic law, winning special privileges for themselves, and, of course, shutting down criticism of Islam \u2014\u00a0Daniel Pipes<\/a>\u00a0has singled out Ellison as representing a far greater threat to Western civilization than Osama bin Laden<\/p>\n Did Ellison feign an emotional breakdown during his opening remarks to leave the hearing and evade follow-up questions from Congressman Peter King and others \u2014 concrete questions about Muslim radicalization that he preferred not to respond to \u2014 or were his tears sincere? Either way, it is not clear which is worse: a dime-a-dozen obfuscating politician, or a politician whose emotions so dominate him that he cannot carry out his responsibilities.<\/p>\n While we are on the topic of strategic-weeping, it is relevant to note that authoritative Muslim scholars, such as Ibn Hajar, recommend deceiving infidels with crocodile tears: “Revealing one thing while secretly planning another is the essence of deception; moreover, the hadith incites [Muslims] to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels” (The Al Qaeda Reader<\/a><\/em>, p.142). This is not to conclude that Ellison is taking lessons from Hajar, but that even the most rabid jihadists \u2014 not just American politicians \u2014 are aware of the power of tears as a ruse.<\/p>\n The other tactic that frequently arises and is in dire need of being laid to rest \u2014 permanently \u2014 is this business of trying to stifle any talk on Islam and Muslims by labeling it “racist.” One would have thought it was obvious, but apparently it needs stressing: race and religion have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Race is inherent, represented by physical characteristics; religion is learned, impacting the mind, regardless of race. Thus most major religions \u2014 especially Christianity and Islam \u2014 have adherents from all races and ethnicities.<\/p>\n Despite these obvious facts, uncritical thinkers like Congresswoman Jackie Speier \u2014 or simply garden-variety manipulators \u2014 constantly cry “racism” when Islam and Muslims come under scrutiny. This approach is ubiquitous: discussing the Fort Hood shootings, a former\u00a0American soldier<\/a>\u00a0lamented that “When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal. But when a Muslim [namely, Nidal Hasan] does it, they call it jihad.” Notice the confusion; as if a “white guy” and a “Muslim” represent different races. (What if the person is a “white Muslim,” as in the instance of Hasan?)<\/p>\n Of course, if a person of any color goes on a random shooting spree, it would be racist to pin it on his race. But if a person of any color goes on a shooting spree \u2014 while waving the Koran, screaming Allahu Akbar, or otherwise rationalizing his actions in Islamic terms, as did\u00a0Nidal Hasan<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 then we are talking about a shooting spree motivated by a learned ideology or worldview that has nothing to do with the shooter’s race.<\/p>\n And this is the whole point: tears and moral outrage aside, while it is important to recognize that not all Muslims are jihadists, it is equally important to acknowledge that all jihadists are Muslims \u2014 hence the need to delimit the hearings to the Muslim community. You will not find jihadists ensconced among neo-Nazis or other “radicals.” Moreover, as\u00a0Peter King<\/a>\u00a0put it:<\/p>\n There is no equivalency of threat between al Qaeda and neo-Nazis, environmental extremists or other isolated madmen. Only al Qaeda and its Islamist affiliates in this country are part of an international threat to our nation. Indeed, by the Justice Department’s own record, not one terror-related case in the last two years involved neo-Nazis, environmental extremists, militias or anti-war groups.<\/p>\n