In the aftermath of one of the most visible examples of a political hatchet job against American Muslims - the allegations made against the (now former) Muslim/Arab liaison for the Barack Obama campaign, Mazen Asbahi - one aspect of it all is the hypocrisy exhibited by the Wall Street Journal.

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.

Bear in mind that anonymity has its place in a democracy, for example, protecting the families of our fearless undercover law enforcement officers in the field. But in the context of volunteering for a political campaign, a newspaper should employ more scrutiny toward its sources. And barring some law enforcement public policy consideration, the newspaper should provide a better explanation than just the position that "someone said so on the internet".

The heavy-handed Rupert Murdoch-owned Journal did its damage by citing the "Global Muslim Brotherhood Report", which "broke" this "story" for the security of our nation. The Journal doesn't say much else about the "Global Muslim Brotherhood Report", other than that they "raised last week" the "connection" between Asbahi and an individual who served on the board of a trust. The "affiliation", if you can call it that, lasted 3 weeks. It took place eight years ago.

Who are the individuals behind the "Global Muslim Brotherhood Report"? The Journal tells us they are "a Washington think tank." For being the people who aspire to shape our national policy, this think tank sure is secretive. A Google search showed nothing of substance about the individuals or groups behind "Global Muslim Brotherhood Report". The group's website? Log-in only, with nothing more to say about the group.

The discriminating reader may think to himself: If we start to scrutinize the individuals behind the "Global Muslim Brotherhood Report", wouldn't we be taking a step toward ad-hominem attacks? Yet this is exactly what the people behind "Global Muslim Brotherhood Report" did to Mazen.

We're a nation of laws, not a nation of prejudices. Similarly, our journalism should be based on fact and careful investigation. That means going beyond innuendo and guilt by association and the attendant judgment by the public. A newspaper should hold itself to higher standards than quoting demagogues at face value.

But there's something even more troubling about the modus operandi of the Journal. Once they received the tip-off from the nameless and faceless "Global Muslim Brotherhood Report", they became the primary actor this smear campaign. They pushed the issue with the Obama campaign, they published the innuendo, painted a number of mainstream Islamic American institutions with the fundamentalist-terrorist brush, they forced Asbahi's resignation, and they published the scoop. The Journal didn't merely report the news. The Journal was the news.

Today we must ask ourselves whether America is safer because the Journal outed and exposed to the world an honest patriot volunteering for a cause he believes in and partaking of democracy which is his right as a concerned citizen. The result was that political participation was extinguished.

As for the sources of the Journal's hit job, they get to hide behind their cryptic description as "a Washington think tank" and behind a log-in only website, keeping to a great western tradition. After all, the executioners of the Inquisition wore masks, too.

You certainly are being rather silly.

"The Wall Street Journal did so by quoting Washington insiders, who were so powerful and brave that they were given a veil of secrecy."

I read the Journal story and I don't see any quotes from "Washington insiders." All the Journal seems to have done was read the report from the publication and asked Mr. Asbahi about it at which point he resigned?

"A newspaper should hold itself to higher standards than quoting demagogues at face value."

Excuse me but what "demagogues" were quoted? In fact, I don't see any quotes at all in the Wall Street Journal article. What I do see is that this Report seems to have documented Mr. Asbahi's service on the board which prompted the Wall Street Journal to ask about it?
What exactly is wrong with that?

"The "affiliation", if you can call it that, lasted 3 weeks. It took place eight years ago."

If you would take a deep breath, you would realize that there was more to this story than reported here. Go to this report:

http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/384/a-look-at-the-resignation-of-mazen-asbahi-and-the-muslim-brotherhood.com

and you will see that Asbahi was part of four other organizations in question as well.

"As for the sources of the Journal's hit job, they get to hide behind their cryptic description as "a Washington think tank" and behind a log-in only website,"

Maybe they just don't want to be subject to this kind of character assassination and how is a "login only website" hiding if anybody can register. I did.

The Muslim Brotherhood is no monolith. In the past, it has had people who supported violence. Yet its mainstream now is engaged in democratic politics.

In this respect, the MB are the equivalent of conservative Christian groups in the US. Yes, there are wacky Christians blowing up abortion clinics. But do we judge all conservative Christian political groups by the actions of the violent fringe?

The problem that this emotional laden article doesn't address is the fact that many many Muslim organizations suffer from a severe lack of good governance and open financial transparency which inevitably leads to tarring all organizations by association in this suspicious light (whether deserved or undeserved).

Simple case in point, even if the WSJ didn't come after Mr. Asbahi for this issue (with board associations with NAIT, ISNA, and Jamal Said) they could just as easily have come after him for the fact that Mr. Asbahi and his family are members and supporters of the American Muslim Council (AMC), whose own director (Abdurahman Alamoudi) was caught at Washington's Reagan National Airport with $500,000 in his suitcase for using Saudi and Libyan funds for admittedly "buying" Islamic figures and personalities at local Islamic conventions and gatherings:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/usalamoudi93003cmp.pdf

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/October/04_crm_698.htm

this is also not to mention his own associations with Mr. James Zogby which Zogby himself admits at here:

http://www.aaiusa.org/washington-watch/3637/its-a-damn-shame

Zogby is a man so hated and reviled among those in the know of Arab American politics

http://www.middleeast.org/read.cgi?category=Magazine&num=630&standalone;=&month=2&year=2002&function=text

http://www.middleeast.org/premium/read.cgi?category=Magazine&standalone=0&num=808&month=1&year=2003&function=text

and was doing his best to work with AMC/Alamoudi to infiltrate and co-opt Muslim organizations as well:

http://www.middleeast.org/archives/1998_06_27a.htm

this means either Mr. Asbahi is incredibly naive about what is going on or is willing to cut deals and work with anyone at any cost (devoid of any and all principles) to get ahead.

The WSJ story and subsequent resignation should thus serve as a reality check for future activists -- that one needs to be more careful who you associate with and get your own house in order before attempting to socially climb up the political ladder.

regards,
Kw

The problem, Kw, is that the goalposts are changing so rapidly that even people like Ms Montaser are being targetted. When you have allegedly conservative hate-mongers on the warpath spreading rumours about "soft jihad" and "sudden jihadi syndrome", it tells you that there will always be people who don't want anyone even remotely Muslim in American public life. Let's not forget that the website Militant Islam Monitor (which I believe is moderated by Daniel Pipes) even castigated ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1925

The people who attack Mazen Asbahi are the same people who went around spreading rumours that Barack Obama was a Muslim. Why should we allow democacy to be hijecked by people who want the US to become a Nazi state?

>> We're a nation of laws, not a nation of prejudices. <<

Makes me laugh what self delusions people in Western societies harbor about themselves, he he hehe. Too much listening to bling on TV News shows I suspect.

Nothing surprising here. Sgmiller and Kwaleed need to find blatantly less discredited "sources" then Pipes and Farah, both apologists and supporters of Zionist terrorism.
The US is a plutocracy, the sooner this fact is realized by the dumbed down masses, the better.

>The problem, Kw, is that the goalposts are changing so rapidly that >even people like Ms Montaser are being targetted. When you have >allegedly conservative hate-mongers on the warpath spreading rumours >about "soft jihad" and "sudden jihadi syndrome", it tells you that >there will always be people who don't want anyone even remotely Muslim >in American public life.

1. This may be true to some extent but it still doesn't excuse incompetence, nepotism, and flat out fraud that was and is committed by "activists" and self-declared "leaders" of the Muslim community.

2. If you are referring to Debbie Almontaser's sad plight that was well covered in the NY Times here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/nyregion/28school.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em;&en;=e5c03e4512899c48&ex=1209528000

this part seems relevant to remention:

"For years, Ms. Almontaser had hoped to become a principal. But soon after joining hands with New Visions, she faced her first challenge. To administer the Gates grant, the school needed a community partner. Two groups wanted the job: a secular Arab-American social services agency and a Muslim-led organization that runs Al-Noor School, a private Islamic establishment in Sunset Park, Brooklyn.
Ultimately, a steering committee led by Ms. Almontaser voted in favor of the social services agency. Leaders of the Muslim group walked away feeling disrespected and distrustful of her, several of the group’s members said in interviews. It was a rupture that would come back to haunt Ms. Almontaser."

Please understand that when any of these community "leaders" and "activists" try to "get ahead" by putting down and turning their backs on their own community and pandering to the establishment (either local or national govts.) it is doomed to fail. Because of the slave like mentality of those aspiring to fame/leadership fail to understand that there is always someone who is willing to degrade and lower themselves MORE than you if it means getting ahead. Dismissing serious issues/Islamic concerns that were raised by numerous voices at an early stage (since they are deemed to slow "progress") only means that these SAME issues will inevitably bubble back up to the surface and burst your bubble at the worst possible times.

(cont'd next post)

(cont'd from earlier post)

3. As for Mr. Asbahi's associations with AMC they continued on up and until after AMC's former President Dr. Nazir Khaja resigned in protest since even *HE* didn't know where the money was coming from:

"In 1999, a group of reformers ousted Alamoudi as AMC executive director amid questions about the group's opaque finances and mysterious Middle Eastern funding sources. Alamoudi took a position at the affiliated American Muslim Foundation but remained in control of the AMC through friendly board members, the reformers said. "I had concerns about the reluctance to reveal information about the finances. They said they're not doing well, that they needed more money, but I looked at their office [in Washington], and it was very big," said one of the would-be reformers, Ikram Khan, a surgeon in Las Vegas. Khan said he resigned from the AMC board when his friend, Dr. Nazir Khaja, a Pakistani-American physician from California who was trying to open the group's books, told him that Alamoudi was not cooperating. "I said, 'If this is the case, I cannot continue to serve in the group,' and I sent in my resignation letter," Khan said."

source: http://ftrsupplemental.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_archive.html

Mr. Khaja was subsequently replaced by a Syrian doctor from Michigan (Yahya M. Basha) who then proceeded to put other Syrians (including Mr. Asbahi's mother as part of the women's committee) inside the organization (all of whom deliberately chose to do nothing about the widespread corruption and fraud allegations).

4. AMC along with a handful of other Saudi funded organizations then worked with a Republican party operative (Grover Norquist) to "get out the Muslim vote" for Bush in 2000. Norquist was (in)famous for:

a. Paying Linda Tripp to record Monica Lewinsky's phone calls, indeed some blogs and websites, allege that he paid and recruited Monica Lewinsky himself...i.e. the entire thing was his show.

b. He is a close associate of Jack Abramoff and was/is involved in helping Abramoff peddle influence from the Indian tribes and casinos to the House of Represenatatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#Connections_to_Jack_Abramoff

c. Here is the best part, he is married -- to a Palestinian Muslim women and is heavily connected to Saudi funded "American" Muslim groups such as AMC, AMF, etc. he even had close links with Alamoudi...he says that "jews will never vote republican" and "american" muslims can be natural allies of the Republican party, here are some good references on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#Janus-Merritt_Strategies

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010514/dreyfuss

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/media_center/leaders/TNR_110101.htm

d. Again, Mr. Asbahi's own family was heavily involved in this matter, culminating with a cover of the AMC newsletter of Mr. Asbahi's mother photographed with Bush (along with the mother of another Syrian (Aref) recently removed from an Obama campaign rally in Michigan for wearing a headscarf).

It is thus rather ironic, that it was the same Republican nut jobs working via their blogrolls who ultimately led him to resign from this position. (A valid question could be raised that if he was good enough to be working for Bush, why then is it a problem for Obama?)

------------------------------------------------
All of this was done "in the name of the community" by self declared leaders who were/are "trying to get ahead". There was/is little or no accountability of any kind -- i.e. nobody resigned or apologized to the community for their actions nor feels culpable nor responsible for Bush subsequently murdering Muslims by the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan or locking them up in Abu Gharaib, Guantanimo, or Bagram.

Bottom line: Racists such as Horowitz, and Israel-first zionists such as Pipes, and others will always say something about *every* Muslim -- the only acceptable Muslim in their eyes is a docile and politically neutered one, one who submits willingly to every form of abuse they hurl. Nevertheless, if we believe that Islam is the truth and that Muhammed (saw) and his companions provided the best example in their practices why then do those who claim to "lead" on behalf of Muslims not hold themselves accountable to the community nor follow the example and standards of the Prophet themselves?

regards,
Kw

I assume Azbahi never resigned. He was drugged and made to sign under duress and will soon be renditioned....the conspiracy gets worse from here on...

Weisskopf, the only conspiracies are those told by the voices inside your head, voices that convince you that anyone even remotely linked to Islam is out to destroy your world. I have heard there may be certain kinds of medication that can assist you in this regard ...

Irfy, the only type of medication which could possible cure weissputz is viagra, followed by a cyanide pill.
He's just another internet addicted zionist idiot suffering from diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the mind.

"Nothing surprising here. Sgmiller and Kwaleed need to find blatantly less discredited "sources" then Pipes and Farah, both apologists and supporters of Zionist terrorism."

Ah yes...its the Jews again. Funny, I can find any mention of Daniel Pipes in my comment and Farah was cited because he reprinted a post from the Report which started the whole thing.

sgmiller seems to think only Jews can be Zionists. I regard that as an anti-Semitic remark.