The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) is a group with a sordid history, though it has toned down its language in recent years. It is because of this history that the Anti-Defamation League listed MPAC as one of the top 10 anti-Israel groups in 2013. MPAC responded, with the help of Jewish allies, by framing its anti-Israel agenda as “working for peace.”
MPAC is defended by J-Street and the New Israel Fund, who criticized the Anti-Defamation League’s inclusion of MPAC as “short-sighted and unproductive.” MPAC published its own article, “When Did Working for Peace Become Anti-Israel?”
MPAC says it is not anti-Israel and is supportive of a two-state solution. Its undeniable history tells a different story—one that J-Street and the New Israel Fund are either unaware of or have chosen to forget.
MPAC’s founders were close ideologues of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Maher Hathout, its current Senior Adviser, was imprisoned in Egypt for his membership in the Islamist organization. Maher’s brother and MPAC co-founder, Hassan, said in 1997 that al-Banna “is the person who most influenced my life.”
Maher Hathout promoted Hassan al-Banna in 1997, along with the radically anti-Israel Islamist preachers, Rashid al-Ghannouchi and Hasan al-Turabi. Ghannouchi was booked as a speaker by MPAC as recently as 2011.
In 1998 and 1999, Hathout and current MPAC president, Salam al-Marayati, defended Hezbollah’s attacks on Israeli soldiers. The two publicly said that it is “legitimate resistance” and Hathout even said that Hezbollah embodied American ideals.
In 2000, Hathout preached that Israel is “an apartheid state against every fiber of the modern world” and is led by “butchers.” He enthusiastically predicted that a “general intifada” would overthrow the Arab governments that betrayed the anti-Israel cause.
MPAC’s former Political Director, Mahdi Bray, is an open supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and was on stage in October 2000 when a speaker proclaimed support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Bray reacted with visible agreement.
MPAC is a leading distributor of inflammatory anti-Israel propaganda and, in 2001, said Israel qualifies as a state sponsor of terrorism. On the other hand, in 2003, MPAC opposed the U.S. government’s designations of Hamas and Hezbollah as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and suggested it was purely a political calculation.
On September 11, 2001, al-Marayati’s reflexive reaction was to suggest Israeli involvement in the attacks “so they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.” Hathout likewise encouraged 9/11 conspiracy theories that usually include Israeli guilt.
Dr. Ali Mazrui, a speaker at MPAC’s 2002 convention compared Israel to Nazi Germany and said elements of the Bush Administration were trying to “plunge the Middle East into turmoil” for Israeli benefit.
The organization has remodeled its public image in recent years, hoping to disguise its inflammatory past and Muslim Brotherhood origins. Its interfaith partners have been integral to this end.
When the Clarion Project, FrontPage Magazine and the Institute on Religion and Democracy reported on MPAC’s choosing of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena as the site for its annual convention last year, the group responded with a press conference to shape the narrative. MPAC was portrayed as the victim of an “Islamophobia network” and anti-Muslim hate-mongers.
At the convention, Reverend Ed Bacon discussed the “evils” committed in the name of Christianity and listed slavery, the crusades, “Islamophobia,” and “evangelical Zionism.” The interfaith bond between the church and MPAC was based in a shared hostility to Israel.
In May, al-Marayati again spoke at the church and told the congregation that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is America’s “aiding and abetting oppression.” He claimed that the “Islamophobia” forces in America are linked to a military-industrial complex with an economic interest in fomenting war.
MPAC is also trying to put distance between itself and the Muslim Brotherhood since the Islamist organization burst into the headlines and lost the support of the Egyptian people.
In 2010, MPAC’s official policy paper recommended that the U.S. should ally with the Brotherhood to marginalize Al-Qaeda. The paper was free of criticism about the Brotherhood, identifying it merely as a “conservative” group engaged in “peaceful political activism.”
Once the Egyptian people began turning on the Muslim Brotherhood after electing it to power, MPAC changed its tune. In November 2012, Hathout gently criticized the Brotherhood’s power grab in Egypt but followed that up by emphasizing that he still has “great respect” for the group.
The following month, I challenged al-Marayati to take a stand against the Brotherhood in a radio debate. He said it was “not worth our time” and is a “ridiculous suggestion.” Much like MPAC is trying to cleanse its anti-Israel record now, al-Marayati tried to cleanse MPAC’s pro-Brotherhood record.
To its credit, MPAC celebrated the removal of Egyptian President Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, on July 3. It specifically condemned the “exploitation of religion to suppress the masses and rob them of their God-given freedom and dignity.”
MPAC’s statement is welcome and is far superior to the actions and revealing silence of its allies. Nonetheless, it still fails to confront the Brotherhood ideology. The time spent criticizing the conduct of Morsi is a fraction of the time spent bashing Israel, the “Islamophobes” and previously supporting the Brotherhood.
The MPAC of today is just a repackaged version of the MPAC of yesterday. J-Street and the New Israel Fund should demand more than rebranding from a foe of Israel.
This article was sponsored by the Institute for Religion and Democracy.
No comments yet
