In Defense of AMT

By Hadia Mubarak

The American Muslim Taskforce’s (AMT) qualified endorsement of Senator John Kerry on Oct. 21 created a lot of racket, especially by AMT dissenters and critics, some of whom seem to have adopted this role as a life-long profession. Although I had ignored much of the ‘noise,’ which consisted of unconstructive criticism, unsubstantiated arguments and personal ‘beef’ with AMT members, the alarming level of factual inaccuracies has finally compelled me to set the record straight once and for all.

Establishing a Democratic Basis for American Muslim Decision-Making

First, regardless of how one views AMT’s endorsement decision, it is imperative that we recognize that there has been no prior attempt to unite America’s largest Muslim organizations before AMT came on the scene. The fact that major players in the American Muslim community, including MPAC, could come together on a national level for the first time, critically examine the circumstances on the ground, deliberate on the political and social implications of all options and engage in thought-provoking discussion is indicative of the ‘liberalization’ or political opening of our own organizations. Rather than rely on a top-down approach to decision-making, leaders institutionalized a process of shura by creating a consultative body of diverse leaders, organizing 40 town hall meetings in major American cities and issuing surveys and questionnaires to members of its constituent organizations.

For the first time, America’s democratic process and Islamic teachings of shura were deliberately replicated within our organizations to allow for an unprecedented level of critical debate among key Muslims leaders. Regardless of the outcome of that democratic process, I would argue that the very fact that a forum was created to allow Muslims to reach this level of critical debate is in fact an important contribution to the overall democratic process of this entire nation. Thus, to argue that AMT’s unprecedented institutionalization of democratic principles and promotion of consensus building among America’s largest Muslim organizations is somehow detrimental to American interests is absolutely shocking and appalling. It borders on an Orientalist mindset that believes only White Anglo Saxon Protestants are inherently capable of institutionalizing and effectively implementing democracy.

Second, I would point out to AMT’s critics that the point of a democracy is not to be 100% right 100% of the time. The objective of a democracy is to allow the will of the majority to unfold, regardless of how many individuals within that community oppose that outcome. One does not hinder or obstruct the outcome of a democratic process because one disagrees with it. That is absolutely antithetical to democracy.

As a member of the AMT since its inception, I can testify to the fact that the coalition reached its final decision based on the input of the majority of the organization’s members. Witnessing this democratic process unfold only increased my profound respect for leaders such as Nihad Awad and Agha Saeed, who respected and represented the majority vote, despite their personal divergence from that vote. CAIR cast its vote within AMT based on the view of the majority of its shura council across the country, despite some of the leaders’ personal disagreement. Similarly, MSA National cast its final vote to issue a protest vote against Bush based on the sentiments of the majority of the Political Action Task Force members, who consist of student activists all across the United States. If this is the democratic process that critics wish to thwart and undermine, then it begs the question, how does that serve the interests of American Muslims or the interests of America at large?

Representation and Inclusiveness

All AMT members recognize the need to expand the coalition to include voices that have been historically disenfranchised within the American Muslim communities at large. This is not a disenfranchisement for which AMT is responsible, but rather a reality on the ground that AMT had vigorously sought to rectify. Not only was the inclusion of Project Islamic HOPE an important achievement in bridging the gap between the immigrant and indigenous Muslim communities of America, but so was the extensive dialogue that AMT pursued with Imam Warith Deen Mohammad’s American Muslim Society (AMS). For the first time, the largest American Muslim organizations had vociferously solicited the input of Imam WD’s community through correspondence that culminated in a meeting between AMT and AMS on Oct. 15 in Chicago, IL. In fact, MSA National had sent one of its board members to this historic meeting to demonstrate our serious commitment to reach out to a critical segment of the American Muslim community that has been historically marginalized within our mosques, Islamic centers and organizations. Despite AMT’s extensive correspondence with AMS, AMS clearly expressed its wish to remain apolitical, which the coalition has respected.

Thus, the allegations that AMT lacks representation and inclusiveness are absolutely baseless. Dr. Muqtedar Khan, for example, is one that makes this argument and quotes Dr. Aminah McCloud to support his case. However, reason necessitates that we question how McCloud’s statement ‘that African Americans don’t usually vote Republican’ illustrates any dissension with AMT? In fact, AMT’s decision to issue a qualified endorsement for Sen. Kerry was strongly advocated by Imam Najee Ali of Project Islamic HOPE, Imam WD’s son-in-law, as well as other African American leaders on the taskforce.

More Factual Inaccuracies

Beyond Dr. Khan’s unfounded accusation that AMT deliberately excluded African Americans, he also argues that MPAC was excluded due to its decision not to endorse. When AMT members decided to incorporate AMT-PAC as a 527(f) entity on April 4, 2004, MPAC’s Omar Ricci sent AMT members a letter indicating that his organization would only be an affiliate and not a member of this coalition. Thus, from the onset of AMT-PAC’s creation, MPAC made the autonomous decision to opt out of AMT’s voting privileges.

Another factual error that AMT critics have built upon is that the qualified endorsement somehow served to alienate the Kerry campaign. Anything could be farther from the truth. I personally spoke to George Kivork, Kerry’s ethnic outreach director, days after the qualified endorsement decision. He expressed his satisfaction with AMT’s decision to at least issue a qualified endorsement and noted that polls indicated that many Muslims were looking to AMT for direction. Similarly, Muslims students who had been instrumental in establishing the Muslims for Kerry campaign strongly lobbied AMT for a Kerry endorsement and later expressed their acceptance of the qualified endorsement. There was not a single student with whom I had spoken who could not identify with AMT’s reservations towards supporting Kerry. In fact, those reservations were echoed by the rest of the community.

Critiquing the Critics

While AMT’s critics have added an important component to the ‘democratic’ dialogue that this coalition has fostered, they have failed to provide an alternative. Moreover, their criticism lacks focus and coherence. Until now, I have yet to understand what exactly it is they are criticizing. Are they upset with the fact that AMT was ever formed or claimed to speak on their constituents’ behalf to begin with? Would they prefer then that American Muslim organizations never unite and remain fragmented even at critical political junctures? If that is the case, then it would behoove them to at least state the merits of their argument.

Second, if they are upset with the overall endorsement because it may serve to ‘marginalize’ American Muslim votes by giving Kerry an endorsement he had not deserved (as MPAC argued), then why are critics like Dr. Khan so upset with the mildness of that endorsement? How could a full endorsement without reservations have better served Muslims’ interests when MPAC and others admits that Kerry had not done enough to court the Muslim vote?

Dr. Muqtedar Khan and I may disagree on a number of issues dealing with AMT’s endorsement. One thing we do agree on, however, is that the Muslim community should “understand and appreciate the democratic spirit of this nation.” I thank AMT for taking the first step in creating a democratic basis for our leadership’s decision-making by seeking the masses’ input through 40 town hall meetings across the country, issuing surveys and questionnaires through its constituent organizations and lastly, representing that vote regardless of the individual leaders’ personal opinions. Watching this democratic process unfold before me gave me great respect for our organizations’ leaders, who have endured much unwarranted criticism in the last two weeks. Disagreement is a mercy, as our tradition has proclaimed, but it must be embedded in a sincere desire to bring forth the truth.

Hadia Mubarak, is President of the Muslim Students Association (MSA-National) and a member of the American Muslim Taskforce – Political Action Committee. She is a second year Master’s student in the Contemporary Arab Studies program at Georgetown University.

This article reflects the personal views of the author and does not reflect the position of MSA-National as an organization.