Dear politicians: Muslim Americans aren't just tools in the war on terror

Islamophobia is becoming a big enough problem in the US that presidential candidates are now getting asked about it. That's a positive development, and fortunately many of them are responding by arguing firmly that this is a problem that must be challenged. Unfortunately, though, many are giving a politically safe answer that carries some very negative connotations, and in some ways is as much a part of the problem as it is the solution.

Sen. Marco Rubio was the latest to do this. In Saturday's Republican debate, he was asked whether he would visit a mosque, as President Obama did last week. In his response, which I've reproduced in part below, he repeated the all-too-common argument that American Muslims should be treated with respect so that they will help US law enforcement in combating terrorism (my emphasis added):

First of all, let's recognize this. If you go to a national cemetery in this country, you will see Stars of Davids and crosses, but you see crescent moons. There are brave men and women who happen to be Muslim Americans who are serving this country in uniform and who have died in the service of this country. And we recognize that and we honor that.

But by the same token, we face a very significant threat of homegrown violent extremism. We need to have strong, positive relationships in the Islamic communities in this country so they can identify and report this activity. Especially mosques, for example, that are participating not just in hate speech, but inciting violence and taking acts against us.

Rubio is not the only presidential candidate to express the view. Hillary Clinton said something similar in the January 17 Democratic debate:

We've got to recognize our first line of defense against lone wolf attacks is among Muslim Americans. And it is not only shameful, it is dangerous for the kinds of comments you're hearing from the Republican side. We need to be reaching out and unifying our country against terrorist attacks and lone wolves, and working with Muslim Americans.

This is a bad answer, and it needs to stop. It is essentially telling Americans, "Be nice to Muslim Americans or they won't tell us about terrorist attacks."

Candidates clearly like this answer because it allows them to sidestep any potentially sensitive questions of equality and religious tolerance and instead stay on what is the politically safest ground of all: opposition to terrorism. But this line of argument is wrong, and damaging, for two reasons.

First of all, Muslim Americans will work to prevent terrorist attacks and counter extremism in our own communities regardless of whether you're nice to us, because we're good Americans and because we want to stop terrorists from carrying out attacks in our name just as much as if not more than anyone else.

According to Gallup, "Since 9/11, the Muslim-American community has helped security and law enforcement officials prevent nearly two of every five al Qaeda terrorist plots threatening the United States." Gallup also found that "tips from the Muslim-American community are the largest single source of initial information to authorities about these few plots."

While it is true that having positive, trusting, personal relationships between Muslim communities and law enforcement makes it easier for Muslims to feel comfortable reporting concerns about terrorism should they arise, we are perhaps more aware than anyone of the consequences of not doing so, in terms of the direct loss of life and destruction that can result from an attack but also the damage to our image as a religion and as a community when an attack is carried out in our name.

American Muslims have every reason to report suspected terrorism activity, and we're not going to stop doing it just because a few politicians say ugly things about us to win votes. To suggest that Muslim American opposition to terrorism and support for law enforcement is somehow conditional, as the quotes from Rubio and Clinton and too many others imply, is both wrong and deeply insulting.

But that's not even the worst part of this argument that Muslims should be granted equality as a tactical counterterrorism consideration. It's that it reduces American Muslims to their role as either facilitating or not facilitating counterterrorism, as if we play no other role in American life.

Muslim American communities have value to this country beyond counterterrorism. We're good neighbors: Muslim organizations raised more than $100,000 to help rebuild black churches in the South that were damaged in arson attacks. We're there to lend a hand in a crisis: Muslim Americans donated 30,000 bottles of water to the Red Cross in Flint, Michigan, to help Flint residents suffering from the water contamination crisis there. And we're patriotic Americans: We fight and die for this country as members of the US military, we dedicate our lives to public service in the government, and we earn merit badges, sell cookies, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Boy Scout and Girl Scout troops.

That's not to say that American Muslims are special and therefore deserve special treatment. Quite the opposite: As President Obama put it in his speech at the Islamic Society of Baltimore "You’re not Muslim or American. You’re Muslim and American." As such, American Muslims have earned the same place in American society as everyone else. And that comes with the liberty and religious protections that help make this country what it is. Extending us those rights shouldn't be treated as some counterterrorism trade-off, because it denies our broader role in society.

Reducing our value to this country to simply a useful counterterrorism tool is offensive, even if you are advocating for more engagement with Muslim American communities and pushing back against anti-Muslim rhetoric. You shouldn't seek to engage with us and avoid making us feel alienated and unwelcome because it's a good counterterrorism strategy. You should do that because we're Americans and we belong here.