Robert Spencer Thursday, May 01, 2008
In mid-April Representative Sue Myrick (R-NC) unveiled a ten-point plan for fighting against jihadist activity in the United States. One would think that Muslims who profess to oppose today’s global jihad would welcome such an initiative, but one Muslim leader from Myrick’s district, Jibril Hough of the Islamic Center of Charlotte, is not happy. On Monday he charged that “Myrick's latest attempt at fighting terrorism is nothing more than a fear campaign. It is nothing more than a new McCarthyism, or Myrickism. As Muslims, we have become expendable as politicians like Myrick seek political gain.”
Myrick responded by inviting the Islamic Center of Charlotte to offer a point-by-point rebuttal to her proposals. And indeed, some specifics would be welcome. What could Jibril Hough really say in opposition to the particulars of Myrick’s plan? It’s worth going through her proposals to see what he could possibly find objectionable.
First, Myrick proposes to “investigate all military chaplains endorsed by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was imprisoned for funding a terrorist organization.” And her second proposal is to “investigate all prison chaplains endorsed by Alamoudi.”
Alamoudi is doing 23 years in prison for funding jihad terrorism. Is it possible that some of the military and prison chaplains he endorsed shared his jihadist views? Can Jibril Hough explain why not?
Myrick then calls for investigation of “the selection process of Arabic translators working for the Pentagon and the FBI.”
An FBI whistleblower has reported that Arabic translators there cheered the 9/11 attacks. Can Jibril Hough explain why this should not be a cause for concern?
Myrick Plan Point 4: “Examine the non-profit status of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations has had several of its officials convicted on jihad terror-related charges, and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case. Can Jibril Hough explain why its tax-exempt status should not at least be examined?
Myrick Plan Point 5: “Make it an act of sedition or solicitation of treason to preach or publish materials that call for the deaths of Americans.”
Objections, Mr. Hough?
Myrick Plan Point 6: “Audit sovereign wealth funds in the United States.”
If these funds may be used to conduct warfare against the U.S., what exactly is Mr. Hough’s objection?
Myrick Plan Point 7: “Cancel scholarship student visa program with Saudi Arabia until they reform their text books, which she claims preach hatred and violence against non-Muslims.”
It is demonstrably true that they do. Does Mr. Hough endorse this hatred and violence, or does he for some reason not want non-Muslims to know what Saudis are being taught?
Myrick Plan Point 8: “Restrict religious visas for imams who come from countries that don’t allow reciprocal visits by non-Muslim clergy.”
This is simply in the interests of mutual tolerance and understanding, is it not, Mr. Hough?
Myrick Plan Point 9: “Cancel contracts to train Saudi police and security in U.S. counterterrorism tactics. And finally, Myrick proposes to “block the sale of sensitive military munitions to Saudi Arabia.”
Given ongoing Saudi financing of the global jihad, what exactly is Mr. Hough’s objection to these proposals?
“I’d be glad to have a dialogue with them,” Myrick has said of the Islamic Center of Charlotte. “The whole point is that we’re trying to get people to work together.” However, it is extremely unlikely that Hough will oblige Myrick and actually provide a point-by-point refutation. After all, what can he say? Objecting to any of her points specifically would raise uncomfortable questions about his own loyalties and principles. The best he can hope for is that the mainstream media will take up and spread his “McCarthyism” smear until the politically correct are too cowed to look into Myrick’s proposals at all, but will simply dismiss them as “bigotry.”
It is a tested and proven strategy, one that has worked again and again. But it is one that Americans who are aware of the jihad threat cannot afford to allow to rule the day. Myrick’s plan should be being discussed on every major news feature show on television, on talk radio, and in the newspapers. That it is not, and that outrageous charges like Hough’s are repeated uncritically in the mainstream media, are two more indications of how far the public debate is today from anything resembling an informed discussion on jihad terrorism. And that, of course, puts us all at risk.
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?.
No comments:
Post a Comment