Mazen Asbahi: The Blog Rundown

by Special Correspondent Fatemeh Fakhraie

You may or may not have heard that Obama’s volunteer national coordinator for Arab American and Muslim American affairs has resigned after ten days on the job because of a campaign in the media that alleged he had ties to Muslim fundamentalists, led by The Wall Street Journal. Here are some great perspectives on it from Arab and Muslim bloggers:

altmuslim discusses how WSJ’s shoddy journalism smeared Asbahi:

The Journal went out of its way to discredit this politically active volunteer-citizen by putting his name and picture front and center of its online edition (the second page of its print edition), laying bare portions of Asbahi’s resume, and questioning his affiliations as un-patriotic and terroristic. Journal readers must have been comforted to know that the Journal showed all the subtlety of a lynch mob in taking to task one of the most sensitive, peaceful and politically moderate members of the Muslim American community.

The kicker? The Wall Street Journal did so by quoting Washington insiders, who were so powerful and brave that they were given a veil of secrecy. Sure, don’t hesitate to scrutinize every blemish on the professional record of Asbahi, and blow up his picture large enough to show whether a hair is misplaced on his head. But for the people who brought this to light, let’s leave them nameless and faceless to lurk in the shadows, lest some other radically moderate Muslim get some crazy fundamentalist aspiration of actually participating in this democracy of ours.

James Zogby, which I found through Dawud Walid, writes about the difficulty the Arab American community has faced and continues to face in politics:

The 1980s were a difficult time for Arab Americans. Politicians returned our contributions, rejected our endorsements, and many effectively hung “No Arab Americans allowed” signs on their campaign doors. Back then, we wrote about this situation, calling it “the politics of exclusion.”

We fought back. We organized, worked hard, and we emerged victorious — or, should I say, somewhat victorious? I now feel a bit tentative about our progress because what happened to Mazen Asbahi has set off alarm bells, causing me to wonder whether or not “the politics of exclusion” might not once again be rearing its ugly head.
…
The combination of bigoted websites, their echo-chamber bloggers, irresponsible mainstream media outlets, and fear and ignorance about all things Arab and Muslim have produced an oppressive environment detrimental to the full political participation and empowerment of the Arab American and American Muslim communities.

Yaman Salahi, found through TalkIslam, calls for Obama to (once again) produce the change he’s promised to the Arab and Muslim communities:

If Obama wants to reach out to the Muslim American community, he needs to do it by standing by them in the face of these and similar smear campaigns which are succeeding in making everything Muslim, and everything Arab, “untouchable” when it comes to politics and campaigning in the United States. He needs to take their concerns about immigration, Department of Homeland Security harassment, and foreign policy in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine seriously. If he does this, it will mean more to Muslim and Arab Americans than the invention of token campaign jobs which look good on paper but might not achieve much–after all, even George Bush appointed an advisor to the White House to represent the Muslim community during his term, but hardly anybody from the Muslim or Arab American communities would call that the kind of “change” they were looking for.

The Arab-American Institute has published a criticism of WSJ’s tactics and information on how you can get involved.

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

Links You’ll Love » Islam on My Side on 28 Aug 2008 at 3:25 pm

[...] Fatemeh of Muslimah Media Watch gives the blog rundown on Mazen Asbahi’s resignation. [...]
Reflections on the MLT conference « Fatemeh Fakhraie on 30 Apr 2009 at 5:00 pm

[...] happy. I also met some big names briefly: Mona El Tahawy, Reza Aslan, Irshad Manji, Kamran Pasha, Mazen Asbahi, and Shelina Zahra Janmohamed—names that I see on a regular basis, but haven’t previously made [...]

Comments

Mary wrote:

That’s really unconscionable. If I turned in a high school report with references that thin, I’d fail.

Also I love how the WSJ article finishes by informing us that the fund Asbahi worked for (for a couple of weeks!) was a subsidiary of THE SAUDIS OMG, who OPENLY SUPPORT CONSERVATIVE ISLAM. Considering how deeply the Bush family is connected to the Saudis, it’s an inconsistency so glaring I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

If there was any question about whether the WSJ has been fully Murdochified, I think we have our answer.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 7:12 am ¶
Dan wrote:

The whole right to a fair trial in this country is irrelevant in this day and age. The trial happens in the media now, ensuring that a fair trial in the court never really happens. The court of public opinion is what matters now, which might not be a bad thing except for the fact that most people in this country are ignorant sheep that believe whatever their rag of choice force feeds them.

We’re in the minority in this country; people who actually think for themselves and research stories instead of taking them at face value.

On a side note, I finally finished ‘Team of Rivals’ by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It’s about how Abraham Lincoln filled his cabinet with his political rivals because he put to use their intellect about their disagreements. Obama said this is a path he is considering.

In my opinion, this is the change that’s needed. Not to fill your cabinet with every Christian conservative who thinks exactly alike and who get sworn in with one hand on the Bible and the other behind their back, fingers crossed.

To claim to be a ‘melting pot’ and a country that prides itself on diversity you need to actually practice what you preach and populate your government in a manner which actually reflects your country’s ideals, not YOUR ideals as an individual, which seems to be the case with the Bush’s and Clintons.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 7:32 am ¶
Steven Miller wrote:

What whining! Did the WSJ write anything that was untrue? After all, the guy resigned BEFORE anything was written about him except for what seems to be a small, relatively private newsletter that tracks the Muslim Brotherhood.

As for “hiding in the shadows”, would you put your name put there to be done to exactly they way that you guys say has been done to Asbahi? So far I have seen this report and the WSJ called “racist”, “emmisaries of hate”, “evil” and worse and why…..because they reported the truth which was that Asbahi had been on the board in question with the Imam in question who is exactly what they reported. What was the ESJ supposed to do, ignore the story?

Mod Note – Your comment almost didn’t make it through because of your first comment, which dances right on the edge of violating #9 of our comment moderation policy. If you take issue with Fatemeh’s argument, make your case. But any further dismissive comments will be deleted. – LDP

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 7:47 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

There seems to be a lower threshold of evidence required to have a go at Muslim Americans.

It would be hard to find a Muslim acceptable to many of these people except, of course, those nominal Muslims who curry favour with the far right. The more a Muslim rejects their faith and attacks their own culture the more acceptable they will be. The darlings of the far right, people like Irshad Manji and Hirsi Ali are good examples of this.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 8:20 am ¶
Dawud wrote:

The sad reality is that the current socio-political climate deems acceptable under the guise of patriotism and “national security” to be Islamophobic. Just saying that a Muslim knows someone who alledgly has ties with the “Muslim Brotherhood” is enough to smear or pressure the likes of Asbahi to leave a campaign.

The odd part about this whole smear even working is that the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t listed by the US State Department as a “terrorist organization” and that the “Brotherhood” renounces violence for political means. Heck, the “Brotherhood” denounced 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. Why didn’t the WSJ mention this?

Go to the US State Department’s website, which labels terrorist groups to verify. Prof. Juan Cole from U of Michigan also has info on his blog about Muslim groups that denounce terrorism.

It just goes to show how absurb the current discourse is regarding Muslms.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 8:54 am ¶
coco wrote:

Obama is accountable to the Arab and Muslim communities for his actions. What will the new head of his outreach committee tell them?

Remember the campaigner who shooed 2 Muslim women away from a photo shoot with Obama because they were wearing headscarves? I thought the campaign was going to do better after that.

It looks like they’re afraid to acknowledge that anyone with common sense can tell the difference between moderate and fundamentalist Islam. Is that too nuanced?

Seeing people lose their jobs over vague accusations of links to ties reminds me of the persecution under Mc Carthyism and the anti-communist red scare.

This makes Obama’s campaign look bad because they can be goaded into dumping good people overboard by the threat of bad press.

That’s good if there’s really a problem, but bad if it’s a knee jerk reaction.

What’s the alternative? Who’s at the head of McCain’s Arab and Muslim outreach program? (does that even exist?) What does the WSJ have to say about that? (…)

I know he has to keep his eye on the prize, but he still needs to to serve the communities he works for and especially its members who are working for him.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 9:49 am ¶
Matt wrote:

The odd part about this whole smear even working is that the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t listed by the US State Department as a “terrorist organization” and that the “Brotherhood” renounces violence for political means.

Except that branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, like Hamas (which is also known as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine), are terrorist organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood (outside Palestine, even) does advocate violence depending on the targets. Aside from sanctioning terrorism against Israelis (or “Zionists” or just Jews), the Muslim Brotherhood are intentionally fascistic (as discussed in Paul Berman’s notoriously long article on Tariq Ramadan).

By the looks of things, Asbahi is being criticized for having known someone for a few weeks 8 years ago. That’s McCarthyism, plain and simple. But no one needs to whitewash genuinely nasty people to get that across.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 10:06 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

@Coco,

The “fundamentalist” description of Muslims is something that I have a problem with as a Muslim.

A “fundamentalist” of any religious movement is just someone who believes in the fundamentals of that religion. So any “moderate Muslim” who practices his/her religion is going to be a “fundamentalist”.

The fundamentals of Islam are prayer, charity, fasting, belief in the oneness of God, Hajj, things like that. So belief in the fundamentals of Islam, ie being a “fundamentalist” does not make one an Islamist, a terrorist or a supporter of violence.

I know it might seem like something trival to you, but as a Muslim equating the fundamentals (fundamentalists) of Islam with extremists is an important distinction to many of us.

In today’s climate it would seem that the only acceptable Muslims to most people in the West are those “Muslims” who deny and do not practice the fundamentals of their faith. The only good Muslim seems to be a dead one, or those who reject the basic fundamental precepts of their faith.

So it seems that “fundamentalist” Muslims, ie those who believe in the fundamentals of their faith and do not reject them, are made out to be the enemy, when that is not the case.

In this situation one word means everything, but considering the mainstream media forces this upon people it is not surprising that people dont know better.

It is one of the ways that the MM tries to make up people’s minds for them without them being aware of it.

As to McCain, I take your point, but Obama has lost a lot of ground with me because of the pandering statements he has made to certain political lobbies.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 10:09 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

@Matt,

Your understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood is a bit weak.

There are all sorts of organisations in the Middle East that go by the same name, so to use a common name to try and attribute common goals or tactics is wrong.

Hamas was founded by one section of the Muslim Brotherhood, but again it doesnt mean that is shares common goals, leadership or tactics with other Muslim Brotherhoods in the Middle East. That is exactly why they are known as “harakat al Muqawama al-Islamiya” or the Movement for Islamic Resistance “HAMAS” in Arabic.

You might be intested to know that Israel supported the early formation of HAMAS as a counterweight to the secular PLO. A gamble that certainly did not go the way the Israelis had hoped.

There are about a half dozen groups in the Middle East who call themselves “Islamic Jihad” yet it would be a huge mistake to lump them all together.

You say that the Muslim Brotherhood outside of Palestine advocates violence depending on the target. Which Muslim Brotherhood would that be? The one in Syria? Heck, even the US and Israel advocates violence against the Syrian regime.

Would that be the Muslim Brotherhood in Lebanon? Might be interesting for you to know that the US is supporting this extremist group, along with other radical Sunni Salafi groups in Lebanon because we’d rather support the March 14th Movement with ties to militant Sunni groups because we dislike the militants of the Shi’ite Hizb’Allah more.

Tariq Ramadan has been made the great boogy man by those who think they know something about Islam and radicals but dont.

The politics of the Middle East is very confusing if you dont have a lot of experience in it, and if you rely on what you read in Western media to know about it, you will ALWAYS go wrong.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 10:20 am ¶
Alex wrote:

some of the comments in the post from your first link (By the writer Arain) clearly need more followup, especially since the WSJ didn’t really mention the Saudi angle in this story (it raised more concerns about ties to the Muslim Brotherhood).

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 10:26 am ¶
coco wrote:

@Abu Sinan:

I hear what you’re saying about the distinction between Islamic fundamentalism and Islamism. Got it.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 10:27 am ¶
Matt wrote:

Abu Sinan, sure there are lots of organizations that go by the same name, but in many cases, including this one, they’re actually connected. Hamas is very much a part of the very same Muslim Brotherhood. The claim was that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t advocate violence for political means – it’s not true. Just plain not true.

There’s a lot of “but what about those other people” in your comment. We can talk about those other people on a different day, but for now it changes nothing about the Muslim Brotherhood. And as for Berman’s article, I know it’s long, but read it before critiquing it. (And please avoid the condescension – it’s amazing what you presume I don’t know.)

This always makes me uncomfortable because it’s one of the ways Jews are pitted against Muslims, but I don’t know how to avoid the conversation. Legitimate and necessary critiques of antisemitism in Muslim cultures get treated as Islamophobia. Even worse, antisemitism is often treated as a legitimate critique of Islamophobia.

In this case, the ties between Asbahi and the MB look pretty weak, and I’d agree that it’s Islamophobia motivating the attacks on him. But that’s not a reason to whitewash the Muslim Brotherhood or obfuscate who exactly they are.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 10:43 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

@Matt,

Sorry, but as a person who speaks Arabic, has traveled extensively in the Middle East, especially Egypt and Palestine, I can tell you for a fact that there is no operational links between Hamas and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

Now I am very sure that is what you THINK based on what you have read in the media in the West, but it just isnt true. Are they friendly? Sure, but that is a LONG WAY off from saying they are the same organisation with operational links.

That boat just wont sail no matter how hard you try.

So I will say it again, if you think all of the groups that call themselves the “Muslim Brotherhood” in the Middle East are the same organisation, or that they all share in any sort of single command structure then you just havent a clue about Middle Eastern politics. Using solely Western sources for your knowledge will do that to you.

Matt, I think you have a problem telling the differences between various organisations that might well be a part of the same over all movement, yet are NOT part of the same organisation. In this case I think you might be confusing the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (not Palestinian IJ) because they have roots in the Egyptian Brotherhood and advocate violence.

You say I am presuming here, but are you saying that you actually DO read Arabic and can understand and read materials from the Arabic press that are not translated by groups with their own agenda?

Your statements sound like a carbon copy of what I get all of the time from Westerners who speak no languages of the areas in question, have spent little or no time in the area, and base almost all of their conclusions on the mainstream media of the West.

The new Orientalism of the West says that you do not need to speak Arabic or any language of the area to be considered an expert. The new Orientalism says that you do not have to have a degree in the area in question or have spent any real time in any of the countries or societies in question.

It is a form of racism that presumes that someone in the West can have minimal understanding, experience and education about the Middle East and still think they have an ability to be taken seriously on an issue.

If, by chance, you have spent a fair amount of time in the Middle East, speak Arabic, Farsi, or maybe even Kurdish, please correct me. Have you had the oportunity to talk to any of the types of peoples we are talking about here? Enlighten me.

I wouldnt trust anyone who wants to expound on these issues unless they have some sort of reasonable basis for doing so. Reading Western media isnt one of them.

This isnt a “Jews pitted against Muslim” issue because I have a Jewish background myself, however nominal, and I am a Muslim. This is a fact versus Western MM nonsense issue.

We werent talking about anti-semitism, so I dont even know why you bring that up. As to the Berman’s article, I have read it. It would seem that you make the assumption that if I did read it that I could not make the comments I have about Tariq Ramadan.

I would have to ask you if YOU have read Tariq Ramadan’s books and articles, if not, on what do you base your agreements with Berman’s claims?

I have read all of Tariq Ramadan’s books and personally had the pleasure of meeting the man here in the Metro DC area a few years ago when he spoke at a local university.

It is interesting that when the West asks for a “moderate Muslim” they reject everyone that comes forward. Oh, like Asbahi, they find one reason or another, but the only Muslims they are really interested in dealing with are the Manjis and the Hirsi Alis of the world.

It is clearly a form of racism when people with credentials like our “Middle Eastern” experts would be laughed out of any forum on German, French or Russian issues, yet they are accepted when it comes to the Middle East and Europe.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 11:50 am ¶
Matt wrote:

if you think all of the groups that call themselves the “Muslim Brotherhood” in the Middle East are the same organisation

Did I say that? I don’t think I did.

It is interesting that when the West asks for a “moderate Muslim” they reject everyone that comes forward. Oh, like Asbahi, they find one reason or another, but the only Muslims they are really interested in dealing with are the Manjis and the Hirsi Alis of the world.

There are times when it makes sense to talk about “The West” writ large. I don’t think this is one of them.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 12:05 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@Matt/Abu -

Y’all both have blogs. Why don’t y’all meet each other over there and continue the conversation?

Because this one is dancing right on comment mod policy 5, and you all are debating bits that aren’t really relevant to the convo as a whole.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 12:11 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:

Thanks, everyone, for your comments!

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 12:20 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

@ Matt,

Interesting you didnt comment on your educational/experience basis for being able to argue this issue.

Either way, I will go with Latoya in that this getting off the subject, but that is a hard one. The guy was blamed for having connections with Islamic radicals, so the topic must touch on what exactly is a Muslim radical.

I try to not even get into this subject with Westerners, especially with those who think they know something based on their reading of some books and articles.

This exchange is a good example of this. The topic is SO complex and so much knowledge and history is involved that someone just doing casual reading on the issue does not have enough information on the subject, but will still fight like a cornered pit bull because of other ideological issues involved, usually support for Israel.

Either way…….that’s it for me.

Thanks Latoya.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 12:26 pm ¶
Steven Miller wrote:

The whole premise of this post is just wrong because nobody was “smeared.” The newsletter in question follows the Muslim Brotherhood all over the world and reported that Asbahi had ties (as in being part of the leadership) of multiple organizations that were either part of or close to the Brotherhood. The accuracy of that has never been questioned. The Journal called the Obama campaign for a comment at which point he immediately resigned. Seems to me that everybody was doing their job as could be expected. Any adviser to a Presidential candidate is going to be closely scrutinized. Was a newsletter reporting on the Brotherhood supposed to ignore Asbahi’s history? Was the Journal not supposed to make even an inquiry about that to find out what Asbahi had to say? If it was all a big “smear” then Asbahi and Obama could have stood up and said so. Instead, his immediate resignation spoke for them and suggests to the average person that something was off. If anybody is being “smeared” it seems to me that is the messengers who were doing their job and by people who just can’t accept the outcome.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 12:39 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

@Abu Sinan
re: #13
See man, this is why I love that you post here. I may have a really different background than yours and come to different conclusions from you sometimes but I really appreciate when you drop knowledge like this. Thanks for bringing the context.

@Matt
re: #7
“…sanctioning terrorism against Israelis (or “Zionists” or just Jews)…” I can’t think of anything I’d like less than launching into a fresh argument with you but can you please not keep conflating these terms? “Israeli” is a national designation, “Zionist” is a political one and “Jewish” is a religious/cultural/ethnic one. Yes, they sometimes overlap but pretending they are absolute equivalents is a political strategy designed to make those us who oppose Zionism on principle into people who “hate the Jews”: it is rhetorical nonsense. And, like Abu Sinan I question why you’d insert that issue into this thread, essentially transforming a discussion about Orientalism and Islamophobia into a referendum about anti-Jewish sentiment.

On topic: I am a vocal Obama supporter and a veteran activist. As I’ve said before, it would be hypocritical of me to express outrage over this latest insult when I have suggested to my fellow posters who were/are Hillary supporters that we all need keep our eyes on the prize, so to speak. But I do think it is fair to express concern that the unfortunate consequence of all the Islamophobic rhetoric swirling around Obama is that he will be even less friendly to his Arab and/or Muslim constituents than his predecessor, for fear of seeming to favor them/us. Taking the long view I still support Obama’s campaign but, even if he takes the White House I don’t really see things getting better for people like me during his presidency, given the unfortunate precedents he is setting as he runs.

And that is a scary fucking thought.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 12:43 pm ¶
Matt wrote:

@Abu Sinan: I’d be happy to move the conversation elsewhere. I think you’re right that the conversation needs to discuss what makes a Muslim a radical (and also what tendencies within Muslim cultures can be critiqued even if they’re not “radical”), but maybe this is a sign we need to do a little more foundational work.

@Joseph: I hate when non-Jews tell me that “Zionism” and “Jews” can be separated like that. It’s a way of ignoring the fact that most Jews are Zionists. But, I wasn’t putting words in anyone’s mouth, writing “Jews” when someone said “Zionists.”

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 12:53 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

@Joe,

Thanks.

@Matt,

Judaism, a religion, most certainly CAN and SHOULD be kept separate from Zionism, which is a political movement. Many Zionists, current and historical, were secularists or even atheists, at the same time some of the most ardent anti-Zionists out there are some of the most religious Jews.

I cannot think of anything but negativity that comes when religion is married to politics. Judaism in the same light as Islam.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 1:19 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

@Steven,

When the people behind this group that claims to track the Muslim Brotherhood wont even reveal who they are and what their connections are why should anyone believe what they have to say?

Checking the factuality of any report always must include the political agenda, if any, of the group and the people involved. Without this information such reports and organisations will ALWAYS be suspect.

For all we know it could turn out that the organisation, like MEMRI, is run by former members of intelligence agencies that have vested interests in promoting a certain line of thinking.

The guy was smart to resign as quick as he did. He realised, like I do here, that the average American is not able to look at the issues at hand and make a fair and educated judgement based upon the facts. They are just too complicated and rely too much on specialised knowledge of history, culture and language that most people do not have. He just would have been a drag on Obama.

I love the fact that Muslims and their leaders are always held to a level of sctrutiny that most Western leaders would fail themselves.

But I guess as the “enemy of the day” Muslims should be used to it by now.

Heck, we had former members of the Nazi Party serving for decades in positions of the highest power.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 1:28 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

@Matt
I hate when non-Jews tell me that “Zionism” and “Jews” can be separated like that. It’s a way of ignoring the fact that most Jews are Zionists. But, I wasn’t putting words in anyone’s mouth, writing “Jews” when someone said “Zionists.”

I am not separating these terms, they are already separate in that they have different meanings. Even if it were true that “most” Jews were Zionists (which is contestable) they are still not synonyms. Most US American Jews are Democrats but “Democrat” is still not a synonym for “Jewish person”…

But, again, why are you trying to hijack this thread? You didn’t put words into anyone’s mouth because you are the only one talking about this. Let it go and let us get back to talking about the topic of this thread: it is important in and of itself. Not all of us have our own blogs to retreat to, this is where I come to talk about these issues and I’d like to get back to it. Thanks.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 1:31 pm ¶
Matt wrote:

Well, that’s even further off topic, but I still vehenmently disagree.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 1:37 pm ¶
thelegacymaker wrote:

In response to the actual post,

I think it is very unfortunate how this brother was forced to resign upon allegations that he sat on a board with someone who had ties with a “brotherhood” that has been accused (but not officially by the US government) to have ties with terrorists. Not only that he was in the Muslim Student Association (oooooooh), a college club. Very unfortunate indeed.

My other concern/question is why does Arab and Muslim affairs have to be represented by one person? I think its unfortunate that politically (key word) American Muslims are only thought of as Arab. I would welcome to separate positions in the Obama camp.

Mod Note – Thank you. – LDP

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 1:38 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

Oh boy.

@Abu/Matt – I would be happy to host a discussion between you two on the intersection between politics and religion. But not on this thread, especially as no one else is participating.

And Joe, start a blog already. I know you have more insight that can’t be encapsulated in a comment.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 1:40 pm ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

@Latoya,

Sorry.

@thelegacymaker,

The problem is Obama cannot afford to have ANYONE in his camp that is remotely connected to anything that speaks of Muslim extremism.

Think about it, even one of Hillary’s main advisors was pushing her to point out how Obama was not the average American. The Republicans can and will take anything like this and run with it.

A heard today on NPR that some 12% of Americans still think that Obama is a Muslim. How many of them are registered voters? 3-4% as a guess? Well, those are 3-4% of Americans till will probably not end up voting for Obama.

So it really doesnt matter, the truth of the allegations, it is that they are out there. People wont investigate and take days, weeks and months to try to even get a basic grasp on these issues, the fact that the allegation was made is what will stick in their heads.

This is sound bit politics at it’s best.

As to the MSA you mention, anyone who has known any members at Universities here in the USA knows that far from having legions of Islamic extremists, they are filled with young men and women looking to party, hook up and have a good time. Certainly not a bastion of “Muslim” anything, other than the fact that they are nominally Muslim in name.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 1:54 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

@thelegacymaker

That is a really good point. There are billions of Muslims all over the planet with different ethnicities, while Middle Eastern populations have different religious affiliations (although Islam is the dominant one). It doesn’t really make sense to smoosh them together into one position.

I am curious t0 hear from US Black Muslims about their reactions to this and Obama’s campaign in general. Especially given his recent favorite qualifier, “as a Christian…”

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:05 pm ¶
coco wrote:

hey y’all,

let’s calm down. it’s a little defensive in here.

i think legacymaker is a black muslim, (judging from his site), and i think he knows the MSA isn’t full of extremists.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:13 pm ¶
Broken Mystic wrote:

Fatemeh — thank you for sharing this report with us. It’s really upsetting because, again, it seems that Muslims don’t have a place in this campaign. In U.S. politics, it seems “terrorism” is the first thing that comes to mind when someone says they’re Muslim or Arab. That clearly represents the growing amount of Islamophobia that exists in the west.

And I must say, Steven’s comments were INCREDIBLY disrespectful. Is that how you respond to people who are taking a stand for human rights, by accusing them of “whining?” I was fired from my job because I verbally (and politely, mind you) confronted a customer who called me a terrorist. She called me a terrorist because of my appearance, because of my skin color, and because the line was too long! I lost the job because the system says “the customer is always right.” If the customers say they don’t want me to work there, then the company will fire me. What am I doing, Steven? Am I whining?

Remember what happened to Keith Ellison? What did Glenn Beck ask him? He asked Mr. Ellison if he was working for the enemy! Why did he ask that question? Because Keith is MUSLIM! That’s the only REASON he asked. Because once they hear “Muslim,” it triggers an alarm in their head, and they jump straight to the stereotype. Let me know when you get discriminated against just because of your skin color or religious identity, and if you *have* been discriminated like that before, then I’d expect you to be more understanding.

Whining.. wow, so I guess Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and Malcolm X were whiners too? Yeah, how dare they stand up for their communities. And how dare these stupid Muslims try to earn a place in our government! After all, the only reason why they want to run for office is to destroy the country!

Your responses, Steven, represent that disturbing amount of ACCEPTED PREJUDICE that exists towards Muslim-Americans. You don’t feel any sense of shame or guilty when you say such insensitive things.

Did you even bother to check out Fatemeh’s sources? Did you follow the links? And do you REALLY think that Muslim American politicians and volunteers are secretly trying to destroy America from within? Just because he associated with a certain group does NOT mean he supports terrorism or that he’s going to blow up Washington or something. The media can throw out names of Islamic organizations and vilify them for ridiculous reasons (like oh my God, this group sends donations to Lebanon or to Palestinians!). Even CAIR is accused of being tied to terrorist organizations for the most ridiculous reasons (like donating money to victims of Israeli military occupation). I went to a recent CAIR convention with my friends and family, am I a terrorist? If I meet with a man from Saudi Arabia, am I automatically a supporter of Wahabism?? Anyone who knows me knows how I feel about Wahabism, but just because I go to Saudi Arabia and talk to some politician doesn’t mean that I’m part of that group! Just because I’m Pakistani, for example, doesn’t mean that I support some of the horrible things that happen in that country.

You are NOT looking at Mazen Asbahi as an individual, you are looking at the stereotypes and the generalizations you have.

Lose the alarmist behavior and read Fatemeh’s post again, this time with an open mind.

Salaam/Peace

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:21 pm ¶
Mary wrote:

And do you REALLY think that Muslim American politicians and volunteers are secretly trying to destroy America from within?

No, and I apologize if my meaning was not clear. I was being sarcastic and attempting to mock the final paragraph of the WSJ article, in which the writer implied an absurdly tenuous link between Asbahi and Saudi government and Muslim Brotherhood. (Using weasel words like “compatible with” and “akin to” – in other words, the author did not bother to verify if they are ACTUALLY connected, they just SEEM connected, and that’s good enough for him!)

In other words – I agree with you 100%, but apparently did not communicate that clearly enough. Once again, my apologies.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:29 pm ¶
Mary wrote:

Is there a secret post-editing/deleting tool or have I had too much coffee today? I would swear I saw my name in Broken Mystic’s response. Oh well, I guess a little clarification never hurt.

Mod Note – Sorry, Mary. Jehanzeb emailed me right after I put up the comment asking me to take it down, so I assumed no one had seen it. Next time, I’ll change the post to “Deleted at commenter’s request.” – LDP

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:32 pm ¶
Steven Miller wrote:

“When the people behind this group that claims to track the Muslim Brotherhood wont even reveal who they are and what their connections are why should anyone believe what they have to say?”

Have you even read what they wrote? All they did was use public documents that anybody can check for themselves to say that Asbahi was part of the leadership of the organizations in question. (They even link to the documents themselves so you check easily). As I said, I am sure they don’t want to become part of the “smears” that others accuse them of doing.

Also, they are a “private”, registration-only site although open to the public. Nobody forces you to read what they write nor is the information widely publicized since it isn’t indexed by the search engines. I read them because I find it to be straight forward and without obvious bias or slant. I am sure that others read it for the same reason which must have included the Wall Street Journal.

Its like any other source. If readers find it useful. they will read it. If not they won’t. I find it useful so I do. I am sure that 99.999999999% of the critics have never even looked at it but they are still sure that they are correct in their criticism.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:32 pm ¶
Broken Mystic wrote:

lol Mary, *I’m* sorry. As you can see above, my post was edited because I caught your sarcasm after I posted!

So yeah, I apologize!

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:32 pm ¶
Mary wrote:

No worries! It wouldn’t be the first time I didn’t communicate exactly what I meant over the Internets. I’m relieved we are all on the same page now.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:45 pm ¶
Dawud wrote:

What happen to Asbahi is flat out Neo-McCarthyism.

He was linked to an Imam that has ALLEDGED ties to an organization that is not designated as a terrorist group, nor has the Imam been charged with any criminal offense. Those are the facts. That’s like firing a dude from working at a elementary school because he knew R Kelly for a months prior to R Kelly being acquitted of pedophile charges. Straight up bogus!

It would be equally wrong to fire a Jewish-American who sat on a board with a member of the Zionist terrorist group Kahane Chai or knew the Baruch Goldstein.

The whole point is that it’s envogue now to use Islamophobia to marginalize Muslims. Plain and simple. This couldn’t happen to anyone else in America except for a Muslim. It would have been a national outrage if it would have been done to anyone else.

@Matt – Muslims have the same concerns that you stated regarding critiques against Muslim being dismissed as Islamophobia. Well, we and other Americans get called Anti-Semetic just for questioning the policies of Israel. Please apply that same standard to your own community as you apply it to Muslims.

A person can have Jewish friends and family members and respect Judaism and still be at odds with the humanitarian violations and violations of international law that Israel perpetrates. Likewise, you can have Muslim friends and respect Islam, yet be at odds with Hizbullah and Iran. “I ain’t mad at ya” – 2pac

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:49 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

@coco
Sorry if I was unclear…I was agreeing with thelegacymaker. Or I was trying to.

Defensive, me? Sigh, yeah, probably.

I’m jetlagged as hell and my ability to deal with micro-aggressions–my new favorite term–(not to mention the macro kind) is seriously impaired at the moment. I should probably wait until my internal time clock catches up and my thick skin grows back before I attempt anything too deep, huh?

Seriously, thanks for the reality check. (You too LDP).

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 2:51 pm ¶
Steven Miller wrote:

“And I must say, Steven’s comments were INCREDIBLY disrespectful. Is that how you respond to people who are taking a stand for human rights, by accusing them of “whining?”

My characterization was directed at the entire body of people, here and elsewhere, who are accusing others of “smears”, “racism” and “hate-mongering” with respect to words they themselves never have seem to have read. As evidence of that you ask:

“do you REALLY think that Muslim American politicians and volunteers are secretly trying to destroy America from within? Just because he associated with a certain group does NOT mean he supports terrorism or that he’s going to blow up Washington or something”

How exactly did you derive that from what I said? All I tried to say was that both the newsletter and the Journal were doing their jobs. The newsletter cited public documents to say that Asbahi had connections to U.S. Muslim Brotherhood groups and the Journal asked the Obama campaign about that followed by his resignation. Do you really believe that the newsletter and the Wall Street Journal conspired together somehow to “get” Mr. Asbahi. Did they fabricate his connections which were a great deal more than casual? Should Americans not be informed that an adviser to possibly the next President of the U.S. had such connections?

You say that I “accept” prejudice towards Muslims yet you know nothing about me or how I feel about Muslims but assume that because I want to be informed the Muslim Brotherhood and its activities I must therefore be prejudiced. How is that exactly?

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 3:03 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:

“What happen to Asbahi is flat out Neo-McCarthyism.

He was linked to an Imam that has ALLEDGED ties to an organization that is not designated as a terrorist group, nor has the Imam been charged with any criminal offense. Those are the facts. That’s like firing a dude from working at a elementary school because he knew R Kelly for a months prior to R Kelly being acquitted of pedophile charges. Straight up bogus!”

Uh-HUH. Steven, you say that Obama’s advisors’ backgrounds should be looked at critically. But how many of his advisors are “looked at” like this?

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 3:07 pm ¶
Steven Miller wrote:

“He was linked to an Imam that has ALLEDGED ties to an organization that is not designated as a terrorist group, nor has the Imam been charged with any criminal offense. Those are the facts. That’s like firing a dude from working at a elementary school because he knew R Kelly for a months prior to R Kelly being acquitted of pedophile charges. ”

First of all, the Imam in question had ties to Hamas which is designated as a terrorist group. Second, neither the newsletter nor the Journal fired anybody; he resigned and said he did it on his own. Third, the newsletter reported that Asbahi was in the leadership of FIVE groups that are either Muslim Brotherhood or close to them. thats alot more than a casual association.

As for Obama’s advisers, they are indeed look at critically and if any of them had the kinds of associations that Asbahi did, they would have the same problem and they have:

“Jim Johnson, the former chairman of Fannie Mae who was one of three advisors tapped by Democrat Barack Obama to vet vice presidential candidates, resigned today after questions were raised about favoritism he may have received from Countrywide Financial Corp. Insisting he had done nothing wrong, Johnson issued a statement saying that he did not want the flap over his mortgage to distract attention from Obama’s run for the presidency.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/12/nation/na-johnson12

Should we now say that devious forces have conspired to “smear” Mr. Johnson?

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 3:17 pm ¶
Matt wrote:

@Matt – Muslims have the same concerns that you stated regarding critiques against Muslim being dismissed as Islamophobia.

I agree. Every form of oppression includes ways of dismissing people when they complain. So Jews and Muslims both receive better receptions within the dominant community by appealing to prejudice against the other group than by addressing their own oppression directly. I think we have to fight against both rather than allowing ourselves to be pitted against each other.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 3:30 pm ¶
coco wrote:

we’re cool joseph. i’m glad to be in this forum.
this is a hard topic for me because i’m not coming from a large primary base of knowledge, but I think its important to support Arab and Muslim voices in the US right now.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 3:31 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:

Steven, you might want to take a look at The Arab American Institute’s link again. This details the problems with the WSJ’s report. Whether they intended to assassinate Asbahi’s character or not, that’s what happened.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 3:36 pm ¶
Broken Mystic wrote:

Steven,

Well it seems pretty obvious here that Mazen Asbahi is being smeared here because WSJ is pretty much calling him a terrorist. Why else would you fear someone who has “ties” with a so-called “terrorist” organization?

Would the media fabricate things? Of course, it does it all the time. Look at how many times they tried to “expose” Obama as a Muslim. Ever watch Fox News? How is that not fabrication? Is there anything wrong with being Muslim? No, but the media makes it sound like it is. They make it sound like if you’re a Muslim, you’re subsequently a terrorist. I believe the media would do this to tarnish Obama’s image once again, not to mention the image of Islam and the Muslim community.

I hate the word “terrorism” — it reminds me of Orwell’s “1984″ and how the dictionary gets thinner just to “simplify” everything — but if you’re going to use that rhetoric about Hamas, then you might as well say the same thing about the IDF. Remember the bombing of Lebanon in 2006?? What do you call that? “Collateral damage” — a term used to cover up the death of innocent human beings?

Hamas is a resistance organization that seeks to free detained Palestinians, to protect Palestinians against brutal occupation and physical abuse, etc. It takes a stand for the Palestinians because Israeli soldiers are being FUNDED and SUPPORTED by the U.S. government. Do innocent Israelis die in the process? Yes, and so do innocent Palestinians. It’s a complex issue, it’s not black and white. People like Sean Hannity and other Fox News reporters just want a clear-cut answer “yes or no.” You can’t just label Hamas a “terrorist” group without understanding the issues that confront that part of the world.

What does it mean to be “tied” to Hamas? Does anyone have any idea how this Imam was connected with them? Maybe it was just a harmless phone call for all we know. Who knows the details? The media uses these kind of words to twist the stories for their own political agenda. It’s an election year and there’s a lot of DIRTY and RACIST politics going on.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 3:45 pm ¶
Dawud wrote:

@Steven – was that Imam charged with supporting Hamas? He wasn’t even charged much less convicted of any crime.

What happen to innocent until proven guilty?

This is the “smear” stuff that we’re talking about.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 3:52 pm ¶
coco wrote:

Given the Jim Johnson example, I would say both he and Asbahi received a high level of scrutiny, and both resigned because of the “appearance of impropriety.” That’s a standard that Judges are held to.

But these claims are being questioned because they’re linked to his ethnicity/ religion and based on so many ill-grounded associations.

Regardless of the other Imam’s ties, he only sat on the board with the guy for a few weeks, 8 years ago, and he resigned when he discovered them.

Also, what are the names and aims of the 5 groups Absahi led? Are they part of the terrorist arms of the Global Brotherhood, or part of the other unaffiliated versions?

I don’t like that he lost his job before any of these questions were resolved.

How many other Arab or Muslims will lose jobs or give up positions of trust due to “claims” that are largely unfounded, or because of “ties” that commonly arise out of membership in mainstream ethnic institutions?

I think that’s what the Arab American Institute is objecting to, in the last link.

I also don’t like the tendency of the Obama campaign to “denounce and reject” folk as soon as something goes wrong. It’s like a little rubber stamp. “denounce.reject”

Let’s get with some nuance. We’ve swallowed some pretty big whoppers from the bush administration over the past 8 years. I think we can tolerate the countours of actual reality.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 4:21 pm ¶
Steven Miller wrote:

“these claims are being questioned because they’re linked to his ethnicity/ religion and based on so many ill-grounded associations.”

Nothing was “linked to his ethnicity/religion” only to his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood were questioned.

“what are the names and aims of the 5 groups Absahi led”

This only shows that few have taken the time to actual read what was actually written.

“Are they part of the terrorist arms of the Global Brotherhood, or part of the other unaffiliated versions?”

This question is incoherent. What exactly are the “terrorist arms” of the Brotherhood as opposed to what “unaffiliated versions.”

“claims” that are largely unfounded,”

Exactly which claims were “unfounded?”

“ties” that commonly arise out of membership in mainstream ethnic institutions?”

Seems to me that the “mainstream ethnic institutions” have assumed that title themselves despite their origins in the Muslim Brotherhood and/or Hamas. In any case, Asbahi was in leadership positions, not simply a member. I cannot imagine that simple membership in any of the relevant organizations could cause sufficient concern to warrant his immediate resignation.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 6:25 pm ¶
Steven Miller wrote:

“he only sat on the board with the guy for a few weeks, 8 years ago, and he resigned when he discovered them.”

Actually. that is Asbahi’s story but I don’t recall see any proof that it is true. I guess when it comes to his explanations, no documents or evidence is necessary?

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 6:27 pm ¶
Steven Miller wrote:

“Well it seems pretty obvious here that Mazen Asbahi is being smeared here because WSJ is pretty much calling him a terrorist.

This continues to amaze me. Don’t any of you actually read what is written? The Journal only reported what happened. The story was about his resignation which had already happened BEFORE the story was written and what they reported was true– that Asbahi was on the board of an organization that also had Jamal Said on the board and that:

“The Justice Department named Mr. Said an unindicted co-conspirator in the racketeering trial last year of several alleged Hamas fund-raisers, which ended in a mistrial. He has also been identified as a leading member of the group in news reports going back to 1993.”

That seems to me something more than a “harmless phone call” but more importantly,
can’t you tell the difference between reporting something and creating the fact itself. The facts are that Asbahi resigned after they sent the campaign an inquiry and that the inquiry came about after the newsletter had written about Asbahi’s position in these organizations, one of which had Asbahi on the board. They asked for
comments from Said, Asbahi, and the organization in question and got no response. (Why is that exactly?) To repeat, the Journal only did what a newspaper is supposed to do- report the story and try to get all sides. Thats what they did but I suspect few actually read the story itself.

“Why else would you fear someone who has “ties” with a so-called “terrorist” organization?”

It might be your view that this is “so-called” but is the official position of the U.S. government (and the EU I might add) that Hamas IS a terrorist organization. Therefore, any association with Hamas has to be of public interest.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 6:42 pm ¶
Steven Miller wrote:

Lets look at the definition of a “smear campaign:

“A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual’s or group’s reputation, credibility, and character”

So what exactly was this “intentional, premeditated effort?” The Journal reported the facts of Asbahi’s resignation and tried to get comments from all the parties concerned who mostly refused to answer. What were they supposed to do- not run a major story? Not include the facts? Do you think the Journal made up all of this? Sorry, but the role of a major newspaper is to inform the public and we can make up our own minds.

As far as I can see, and as I have said repeatedly, the Journal told the story in a straight-forward manner and did everything that any good paper would do. You all might not like what happened, and that is your right certainly, but don’t blame the media. I can’t see any other way they could have written this story and lets not forget, the same story was carried by hundreds of other news outlets. Are all of them also part of the “smear campaign?”

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 6:57 pm ¶
Cam wrote:

I’m a pretty avid reader of the WSJ and I’ve definitely noticed that it’s become more conservative since Rupert Murdoch took over. However, I pretty much only read the Personal Journal and the Weekend Journal, so I never saw this.

Posted 19 Aug 2008 at 9:44 pm ¶
hotconflict wrote:

[Mod Note - Your comment has been deleted. You cannot advertise for your own site in the comments. - LDP]

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 4:57 am ¶
Mary wrote:

Actually. that is Asbahi’s story but I don’t recall see any proof that it is true. I guess when it comes to his explanations, no documents or evidence is necessary?

Um, yes, it’s a little thing called “innocent until proven guilty.” The burden of proof is on the accuser.

By your logic… Asbahi HASN’T proven he isn’t secretly a Chippendales dancer in his spare time, so I guess that must be true too.

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 7:08 am ¶
Steven Miller wrote:

You know, many here and other places have hurled accusations of “double standards” and claimed there were “unfounded accusations.” As far as I can see, everything that the Journal wrote was true and can be backed up with actual documents. Asbahi’s statement, however, is not subject to the same standard as nobody has asked for proof as to when and why he resigned. That is a far cry from your example which is incoherent. To repeat, everything that was said about Asbahi was substantiated but what he said was not substantiated.

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 8:21 am ¶
Dawud wrote:

Innocent until proven guilty is an American value, right Steve?

As you mention regarding the Imam who was listed as an “unindicted co-conspirator”, you seem not to understand what “unindicted co-conspirator” means or the outcome of the case in which he was named.

The case in question resulted in not ONE CONVICTION; the most serious charges were found “not guilty” and the lesser ones in which the jury couldn’t agree made the trial end in a MISTRIAL. NO ONE WAS CONVICTED OF ANY TERRORISM RELATED CRIMES. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Law expert Prof. David Cole of Georgetown stated that this was a major defeat for the Department of Justice, whose main witness of an ISRAELI intelligence agent and spent years and MILLIONS of dollars in a wasted effort. Wasting our tax dollars on nonsense.

“Unindicted co-conspirator” means that the government lacked enough evidence to INDICT with criminal charges. A person can be a person of interest – “unindicted co-conspirator” – in a case for knowing an indicted person or simply drinking tea with that person.

Again, Asbahi was FORCED to resign because he knew a man who was “not guilty” and “not-indicted” of having ties with “suspected persons.”

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 9:21 am ¶
coco wrote:

Although my earlier comments were responded to, little additional information was provided that actually answered the questions I posed.

That’s the same problem I have with the WSJ article.

The Wall Street Journal’s article does not contain enough information to firmly ground a belief that Absahi was involved in wrongdoing. That is why his resignation in the face of it is troubling.

More investigative information would have allowed the author and readers to draw realistic conclusions about what his “ties” actually meant, whether good or bad.

Better investigative journalism might have prevented a reasonable leader from resigning in a cloud of partial information and seeming scandal.

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 9:23 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

@Dawud,

Good points. I heard a legal expert say that the reason many people were put on the “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” list was so that they could be drawn upon at a later time for testimony, not that they had done anything in anyway to support terrorism.

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 10:51 am ¶
Steven Miller wrote:

“Asbahi was FORCED to resign because he knew a man who was “not guilty” and “not-indicted” of having ties with “suspected persons.””

After answering this, I am going to retire from this fight. It seems to me at this point that you all just don’t want to understand what actually happened or you would not continue based on premises that are just simply false. For about the 10th time, Asbahi and/or the Obama campaign made the decision to have him resigned. He was not FORCED to resign by anybody else because he did it before there was one word written about him in public. If you would take even 5 minutes to read the original newsletter reports, you would see that there was much more to this story then you continue to repeat. There were major newspaper investigation of Jamal Said and the his mosque in addition to what the government said about him not to mention that the Journal asked him for comment and he refused.

Not only that, the other members of the company in question were also leaders in the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and Asbahi was also on the boards of FOUR other organizations that were wither Brotherhood or tied to it.

All the Journal did was ask him in an email about this which any remotely decent newspaper would have to do and, again, he resigned. The story that followed was about the circumstances of his resignation.

“The Wall Street Journal’s article does not contain enough information to firmly ground a belief that Absahi was involved in wrongdoing”

ARGGGH. The story (for the 11th times) was about his resignation and the circumstances that prompted it. All the major parties were given an opportunity to explain their side which they refused to do. Its not the job of a newspaper to do all of the thinking for the public or turn every story into a major investigation. All of us, or most of us anyway, could see what the circumstances were from what was written and make up our own mind about any further implications.

I am sorry, but if the Journal had gone further and discussed all of Mr. Asbahi’s ties to the U.S.Muslim Brotherhood, I am pretty confident that the readers here would have even more reasons to complain about the coverage.

In the end, both Asbahi and the Obama campaign could have expected that any of their advisers would be (and had been) subject to intense scrutiny and that any hint of connection to terrorism and/or extremism would be enough to cause a problem. Obviously, they either didn’t know about Mr. Asbahi’s connections and/or Asbahi didn’t reveal them. Thats either stupid, incompetent, or dishonest or some combination of those factors. As noted above, Mr. Johnson resigned for even a whiff of impropriety that did not have the importance of the the things that were relevant in the Asbahi case.

With that, I am going to leave this blog because I have spent WAY to much time trying to explain the facts of this situation to people who just won’t, for some reason, take the time to go back to the original reporting to see for themselves what happened.

I think you actually do a disservice to the Muslim community in this country by continuing to ruminate about a supposed plot to “smear” this guy. There are many wonderful U.S. Muslims who do did not, for whatever reason, choose to take a leadership role in a nexus of organizations under this kind of cloud. Let one of them take Asbahi’s former position and the vast majority of Americans will be completely satisfied. We just don’t want to see an adviser and potential member of an Obama administration who comes so strongly from this millieu.

Best wishes to all.

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 11:05 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

@Steven,

Did you ever even consider that we get exactly what you are trying to say but that we just refuse to drink the kool aid?

“US Muslim Brotherhood”? I had to laugh at that one. There certainly are people in the US with ties to various incarnations of the various Muslim Brotherhood groups around the world, but there most certainly is NOT an organisation called the “US Muslim Brotherhood”.

Let me guess, they put out a document to all of their numerous American members called “The Protocols of the Elders of Islam”?

It is so ironic how modern Islamophobes and conspiracy kooks echo their brethern in the ranks of the classic anti-semitic movments.

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 12:06 pm ¶
coco wrote:

So basically, I’m supposed to believe that the Obama campaign should have found a Muslim outreach coordinator who went through college without being associated with the Muslim Student’s Association?

I’m supposed to believe that the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Student Association (on college campuses nationwide) are actually fronts for terrorist Islamic organizations?

Why? Because CAIR received $5000 from the Holy Land Foundation, [ref found at IPT through Anti-CAIR] One of the HLF’s founders was a political leader of HAMAS. The HLF was tried for funding charities in Palestine. The problem is that charity funding for schools, hospitals, and food aid programs supposedly enabled HAMAS to focus its resources on terrorism. That ended in a mistrial when jurors couldn’t conclusively find that the evidence supported the prosecution’s claims. From the HLF Wikipedia entry.

Wait, what? A MISTRIAL??

[i went to anti-sites on purpose to see the worst arguments they could throw out, but even they can't put together a convincing anti-argument]

for serious steve, the kook-aid … it’s poisoned

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 1:11 pm ¶
Steven Miller wrote:

“US Muslim Brotherhood”? I had to laugh at that one. There certainly are people in the US with ties to various incarnations of the various Muslim Brotherhood groups around the world, but there most certainly is NOT an organisation called the “US Muslim Brotherhood”.”

A good definition of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood = “groups with ties to “various Muslim Brotherhood groups around the world”.
Did you expect an office with a sign saying “U.S. Muslim Brotherhood?” Have you even looked at the documents this non-existent U.S. Brotherhood produced completely with organization spreadsheets, Shura Council, and regional divisions? No, I expect not because I am sure it was all concocted as a way to further “smear” U.S. Muslims.

“It is so ironic how modern Islamophobes and conspiracy kooks echo their brethern in the ranks of the classic anti-semitic movments.”

Ah yes, you just can’t avoid the name-calling, can you?

” I’m supposed to believe that the Obama campaign should have found a Muslim outreach coordinator who went through college without being associated with the Muslim Student’s Association?”

No, you should believe that they should have found an outreach coordinator that wasn’t in a leadership position with so many organizations tied to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (ooops, forgot that this was an Islamaphobic fantasy complete with hundreds of forged documents)

Forget the rest. Actually, I am starting to feel sorry for you all who seem to wallow in this self-pitying conspiracy mongering…gets in the way of U.S. Muslims building healthy organizations that can really represent their interests as opposed to the Brotherhood groups which are just going to retard their political progress in this country.

A final thought….when I said there was “whining”, I was threatened with deletion but its ok to call me “kook-aid”, Islamaphobic, etc etc. I think somebody needs to examine their moderation policies because I am really out of here now.

signing off and deleting this bookmark

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 3:11 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:

lol @ Abu & Coco’s koolaid comments.

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 3:12 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

Yuck.

This thread got entirely too long, so I stopped reading posts and started skimming.

Thread is closed, no further productive conversation to be had.

****************** THREAD CLOSED *********************

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 3:13 pm ¶
Viviana wrote:

hahaha I definitely don’t want to drink the kool aid!

Mod Note – Last one people. Somehow, I don’t have the heart to delete a kool-aid reference. But no more. – LDP

Posted 20 Aug 2008 at 3:16 pm ¶