America’s Others: Radicalizing Muslims
By Laura Salinger
This March, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) held a controversial hearing on the radicalization of American
Muslims. Opponents argue the hearing catered to the new style of fear-mongering, political maneuvering
that seems all too frequent these days. They say King, who chairs the House Homeland Security
Committee, is feeding into and building on fears of terrorism, while painting targets on the backs of
American Muslims (of which, the Pew Research Center estimates to be about 2.5 million people) and
perpetuating Islamophobia. Supporters, however, say this will shine the light on terrorist groups trying to
radicalize American Muslim groups and King, who acknowledges that a small, small minority of Muslims
are connected with known terrorist groups, says he is proud of the hearings.
The dangers of terrorism are not to be taken lightly. There are, of course, radical and dangerous people
| Laura Salinger |
and groups who identify as Muslim (there are also, of course, radical groups that indentify with many other religions and affiliations).
Radical extremist groups that use violence are, without question, a national security threat and ensuring U.S. citizen safety should be
at the forefront in the minds of our leaders and lawmakers. Terrorist groups do target young Muslims all over the world and the U.S.
needs to be mindful of its security and threats to it.
The radicalization hearing, however, seems to be a chess game of ratcheting up fear and political posturing. Its effect will be, some
argue, not to root out terrorism but instead to target Muslim Americans to take the fall for extremists. Shall Christians take credit for the
Westboro Baptist Church (those classy folks who call themselves Christians but are a designated hate group protesting at military
funerals)? Shall we hold hearings on the radicalization of Christianity because of the actions of a few extremist Christian groups (who
use their very misguided alliance with “faith” to condone violence)? Normally these groups, if they break the law, have their case heard
in a courtroom and are punished accordingly. They are not considered, although they may call themselves Christian or the like, to
speak for that group. No one would even suggest it.
The United States, unfortunately, often has “others;” groups that are targeted and labeled because of their faith, their ethnicity, their
culture. Islamophobia fervor took over after 9/11 and continues today. For a country based on the principles of religious freedom, this
“other”-labeling of religious groups is troubling to some leaders.
“Clearly this committee is setting a dangerous precedent in treating one religious group different than another,” Rep. Laura
Richardson (D-California) during the hearing.
Asian American leaders have, likewise, recently spoken out against the hearing. Floyd Mori, Japanese American Citizens League
director, Deepa Iyer, South Asian Americans Leading Together director, and George Wu, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans
Radical extremist groups that use violence are, without question, a national security threat and ensuring U.S. citizen safety should be
at the forefront in the minds of our leaders and lawmakers. Terrorist groups do target young Muslims all over the world and the U.S.
needs to be mindful of its security and threats to it.
The radicalization hearing, however, seems to be a chess game of ratcheting up fear and political posturing. Its effect will be, some
argue, not to root out terrorism but instead to target Muslim Americans to take the fall for extremists. Shall Christians take credit for the
Westboro Baptist Church (those classy folks who call themselves Christians but are a designated hate group protesting at military
funerals)? Shall we hold hearings on the radicalization of Christianity because of the actions of a few extremist Christian groups (who
use their very misguided alliance with “faith” to condone violence)? Normally these groups, if they break the law, have their case heard
in a courtroom and are punished accordingly. They are not considered, although they may call themselves Christian or the like, to
speak for that group. No one would even suggest it.
The United States, unfortunately, often has “others;” groups that are targeted and labeled because of their faith, their ethnicity, their
culture. Islamophobia fervor took over after 9/11 and continues today. For a country based on the principles of religious freedom, this
“other”-labeling of religious groups is troubling to some leaders.
“Clearly this committee is setting a dangerous precedent in treating one religious group different than another,” Rep. Laura
Richardson (D-California) during the hearing.
Asian American leaders have, likewise, recently spoken out against the hearing. Floyd Mori, Japanese American Citizens League
director, Deepa Iyer, South Asian Americans Leading Together director, and George Wu, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans
chair and OCA executive director have condemned the hearing.
When asked why Asian American groups feel the need to speak out against the hearing, George
Wu says it’s simple; other Asian American groups have been there.
It is our issue, because historically we have gone through this,” Wu says. “We know how people of
power can turn on others with really no good reason. We are in this together.”
The U.S. government, unfortunately, has a long history of creating fear around the idea of the
“other,” often using national security issues and nativist battle cries to propose troubling
legislation or affect public sentiment. From discriminatory immigration laws targeting the Chinese
in the gold rush 1800’s to Japanese internment camps, Asian Americans are no stranger to this.
And the latest target in this age-old battle is American Muslims.
Wu argues the hearing was purely “political theater.” Suggesting it is appropriate to implicate the
entire Islamic world and law-abiding Muslim Americans for the actions of a few, he says, is
inexcusable.
“This is really to draw attention away from real issues and scapegoat good, law abiding citizens,”
Wu contends. “It is often easier to raise fear than deal with the real issues.”
As for that sticky concept of “other,” Wu says, “It begs the question; who will be the next target?”
When asked why Asian American groups feel the need to speak out against the hearing, George
Wu says it’s simple; other Asian American groups have been there.
It is our issue, because historically we have gone through this,” Wu says. “We know how people of
power can turn on others with really no good reason. We are in this together.”
The U.S. government, unfortunately, has a long history of creating fear around the idea of the
“other,” often using national security issues and nativist battle cries to propose troubling
legislation or affect public sentiment. From discriminatory immigration laws targeting the Chinese
in the gold rush 1800’s to Japanese internment camps, Asian Americans are no stranger to this.
And the latest target in this age-old battle is American Muslims.
Wu argues the hearing was purely “political theater.” Suggesting it is appropriate to implicate the
entire Islamic world and law-abiding Muslim Americans for the actions of a few, he says, is
inexcusable.
“This is really to draw attention away from real issues and scapegoat good, law abiding citizens,”
Wu contends. “It is often easier to raise fear than deal with the real issues.”
As for that sticky concept of “other,” Wu says, “It begs the question; who will be the next target?”