December 29, 2010 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Much has been made of two recent but unrelated items, the release of a study by MPAC [Muslim Public Affairs Council, see, http://www.mpac.org/assets/docs/publications/MPAC-Post-911-Terrorism-Data.pdf] which puts forth the proposition that there is a significant amount of support in the Muslim community for anti-terror efforts by U.S. law enforcement, and two, the announcement by Peter King [R,NY] the incoming Chair of the House's Homeland Security Committee, that he will hold hearings on the increasing radicalization of the U.S. Muslim community.
MPAC's study, which alleges that the U.S. Muslim community was responsible for breaking up about 1/3 of the al-Qaeda terror plots in the U.S., is seriously flawed according to terror experts.
An analysis by the Investigative Project on Terrorism states with regard to MPAC's study, "The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) claims in its study that "almost 1 out of 3 al-Qaida-related terror plots threatening America since 9/11/01" were thwarted in part because of help from the Muslim community. However, the MPAC study is full of mistakes, faulty data, contradictions, selective use of information, and demonstrably dishonest analysis..." [source, Islamic Group's Database Found To Be Fraudulent, Investigative Project on Terrorism, http://www.investigativeproject.org/2390/mpac-stats-not-supported-by-facts]
Actually, MPAC uses just about every statistical trick in the book to skew the result of its study to support its narrative that there is widespread support for anti-terror law enforcement efforts by the U.S. Muslim community.
Furthermore, MPAC uses its findings to advance the notion that, "...there is little evidence of rising ideological extremism among American Muslims," a statement that flies in the face of reason to most Americans post 9/11.
Because of the way which the majority self-appointed spokes-groups for the U.S. Muslim community reacted to 9/11 [carrying on a counter-offensive charging the U.S. with Islamophobia and widespread discrimination] many have concluded that they have no interest in combating Islamism [political Islam, intent upon incrementally extending the reach of Shari'a in the U.S.] but rather, conduct their affairs in such a way as to make it impossible for the U.S. to defend itself against the threat of forced Shari'a compliance - in effect a "legal" coup d'état, supplanting the Constitution with the rule of Islamic law.
Often in this discussion there is an attempt to create an artificial distinction between the violent and non-violent forms of jihad. While it is of course a primary duty to effectively deal with domestic Muslim terrorism, in the long term the non-violent effort to force Shari'a compliance is just as damaging as would be an imposed Islamic theocracy, the end points are exactly the same, representing two pathways of an existential threat.
We see the upcoming King hearings, rather than being divisive, serving as a litmus test for these American Muslim organizations. If over the next few weeks and months CAIR, ISNA, MPAC resolve to support the goal of the hearings and positively participate in them, they will have demonstrated a willingness to make a laudable difference.
If on the other hand, they continue to allege that there is no problem with increasing radicalization among American Muslims and that King and his ilk are Islamophobes, beating up on a "peaceful" Islam, then their agenda will become obvious for all to see and they will no longer have cover under which to hide.
© 2010 PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved.