Now she has written another defence of her appearance, this time for the Huffington Post.

At Gallup, where I direct the Center for Muslim Studies, we do precisely this every day–measure and report what the world is thinking. While what we discover is not what some expect–or want to hear, denying these findings may help some score points with their ideological base, but only weakens our ability to meet our goals as a nation.

[...]

I experienced this first hand a few weeks ago when I spoke by phone on a UK based TV program called Muslimah Dilema. To my unpleasant surprise, I found out on air that I was joined by a member of Hizbul Tahrir (HT), a marginal but controversial group which denounces Western Democracy and calls for the creation of a pan-Islamic state in the Muslim world. The reaction to my reporting of Gallup’s findings on Muslim views of democracy, gender and Shari’a (Islam’s ethical and legal code) by both the HT representative and later the bloggers who’ve parsed my interview showed just how little either side was willing to understand the very people they so prolifically discuss.

The HT representative on the program dismissed or “reinterpreted” findings I presented so as to not challenge the group’s simplistic utopian ideology which holds liberty in contempt as morally decadent. For example, as I regularly report, our research shows that far from denouncing democracy, Muslims around the world say it is among the things they most admire about the West, specifically mentioning “liberty” as a desirable attribute. Around the world, from Morocco to Malaysia, Muslim respondents described their respect for much of what the West holds dear: freedom of the press, the rule of law, and transparency and accountability of government.

As much as HT selectively ignored and exploited these findings to push their propaganda, many conservative pundits who diametrically oppose HT’s vision of the world, did much the same. To them, my crime was that I reported that many Muslim women wanted sharia as a source of legislation. I also explained that Muslim women surveyed by Gallup said they believed they should have access to equal legal rights, free employment, voting without family influence, and even leadership positions in government. This suggests that many Muslim women see Sharia differently from those who use it to deny women rights. For simply stating results of survey research, I stood accused of “endorsing” Taliban-like rule, and downplaying the abuses done in the name of sharia.

Measuring and reporting what people believe does not mean agreement or endorsement. What it does mean is seeing the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. Factoring in this reality makes leaders stronger–their decisions are better informed, their communication is better targeted, and their outcomes are better anticipated. While some may find the facts inconvenient, the rest of us can benefit from our ability to engage in authentic dialogue, even when we disagree.

Read this transcript (pdf) of her appearance or watch the video and judge for yourself whether she was the wronged party as she tries to portray herself. Or will you agree with me and al-Qanaas al-Masri that Dalia messed up by failing to contradict the HT members she appeared alongside when they used her research to support HT’s ideology?

Dalia Mogahed’s foolish appearance on Islam Channel handed Hizb ut-Tahrir a massive propaganda coup – time for a mea culpa, not excuses.

****

Through a source, who must for obvious reasons remain anonymous, I have received a copy of a letter that Dalia Mogahed, an advisor to Obama, wrote to The Telegraph in response to their coverage of her decision to appear on the Islam Channel on a programme run and hosted by Hizb ut-Tahrir. The letter reads:

Dear Sirs;

I am writing in response to the 8 October article “Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood” by Mr. Gilligan and Mr. Spillius.

I was on the Muslimah Dilemma program as a pollster, not a pundit. I did not take issue with the objectionable remarks of the host or the guest because as a Gallup analyst my job is to explain the opinions of others, in this case Muslims around the world, and not to present my personal opinions. I do not in any way endorse Hizb ul Tahrir.  My participation in the program does not serve as endorsement of any group or cause.

My staff and I did not find out the affiliation of the host or other guest until she was introduced on air during the program, and would not have agreed to the interview had we known ahead of time. I suspect the host knew this and therefore deliberately mislead us to score propaganda points for an ideological movement.  Unfortunately the Telegraph’s publicity and misrepresentation of my appearance may have delivered to the group exactly this victory.

Sincerely,

DALIA MOGAHED

Director and Senior Analyst

Center for Muslim Studies

202.715.3206

901 F Street, NW.

Washington, DC. 20004

USA

GALLUP

So in other words:

1. Damn. I’ve been caught out.
2. It’s not my job to challenge fascist movements – even when I see my research being (mis)used by them to justify their totalitarian ambitions.
3. It wasn’t my fault. How could I, “Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies”, or my staff know that this was a programme directed and hosted by HT members?
4. It’s all the Telegraph’s fault anyway. By reporting this, they’ve allowed HT to “score propaganda points”!

I think it is notable that the Telegraph didn’t bother publishing this letter.

I also think that it’s worth noting that Dalia Mogahed did not mention any of the problems, which I pointed out in my initial blog on this subject, of appearing on the Islam Channel in the first place (one problem being that the channel’s CEO, Mohammed Ali Harrath, is a convicted terrorist who is wanted by Interpol).

****

Since taking office, President Obama’s administration has tried hard to break with Bush-era ‘them and us’ rhetoric and reach out to ordinary Muslims around the world.

However, I don’t think that anyone thought this policy would include publicly sucking up to Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group which, much like al-Qaeda, aspires to create a global, totalitarian and expansionist Caliphate.

And yet, as Counter Terrorism News website reveals, this is precisely what has now happened.

On Sunday, Dalia Mogahed (pronounced ‘mujahid’), a high-profile member of President Barack Obama’s Faith Advisory Council, spent 45-minutes on the Islam Channel’s programme ‘Muslimah Dilemma’ alongside fellow guest, Nasreen Nawaz, HT’s national women’s media representative (the video is available here).

There are some initial problems with this:

-          The Islam Channel is a hardline wahhabi/Islamist outfit run by Mohammed Ali Harrath, a convicted terrorist who is wanted by Interpol.

-          The ‘Muslimah Dilemma’ programme is an HT-run programme whose producer, Casa Sharif, and host, Ibtihal Bsis Ismail, are all active members of HT.

-          The appearance of such high-profile member of the US government alongside an HT guest risks legitimising HT in the eyes of ordinary Muslims.

Even more problematic, however, is that Mogahed, best known for her work with the pro-Islamist, Saudi-funded academic John Esposito, did not once challenge HT’s speakers during the 45-minute discussion.

This was despite the fact that Nawaz was introduced as “the Women’s Media Representative for the pan-Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir” and that during the programme, Nawaz openly:

-   Called for the re-creation of “Islamic Khilafah state” in which women are “not permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”.

-  Called for Sharia law to be “the source of legislation” and for “strict regulation in terms of social laws” (explicitly saying that “men and women cannot socialize” and “they cannot be alone together”).

-  Attacked secular “man-made law” and the west’s “lethal cocktail” of “liberty” and “capitalism” which they blamed for “promiscuity”, “pornography”, “teenage pregnancies” and “adultery”.

In addition to not directly challenging HT on a single one of these issues, Mogahed additionally cited evidence from surveys that neatly backed up HT’s regular claim that “the Muslims” are calling for the implementation of a hard-line version of Sharia law and the creation of a despotic and repressive Caliphate. For instance, at one point, Nawaz explaining how HT’s Caliphate will work, saying:

For example, you have political parties underneath an Islamic Khilafah state. This is all defined by the Islamic state—this is all defined by the Islamic texts. You have political parties where women again are encouraged to be a part of. You have a mechanism called the majlis al-ummah, which is the consultative body that holds the ruler to account and advises the ruler. You have the Qadi Muthalim, the court of unjust acts, where a woman can directly account the rulers of her society. These are some examples of the issue of governance and the principles of governance in Islam.

Mogahed responds, not by challenging Nawaz’s laughable claims that HT’s various absurd inventions like the “Majlis al-Ummah” are “all defined by the Islamic texts” but by saying:

I think the solutions are many and quite complicated. [In] certain societies the issue is around the lack of money and [in] other societies resources are plentiful. What Muslims around the world tell us that they believe is a key to progress is attachment to their spiritual and moral values. They really do see, many of them, that Islam offers a solution for their problems and that they see Islam as their society’s greatest asset. When we asked people what they admire most about the Muslim world, what they tell us is their attachment to Islam, Islamic values, even the value of hospitality, the value of family. So I think that whereas people around the world do feel that the problems are diverse, many many of them do mention Islam as a as a part of that solution. When we asked people what Muslims can do to help themselves, one of the most frequent responses is for them to unify and another is for them to follow Islam and and make it a greater, more authentic part of their lives.

So, in other words, Dalia Mogahed, advisor to Barack Obama, by failing to clearly say that very few Muslims actually agree with HT’s aims instead implies that HT are not only right but their ideology is also popular among Muslims around the world. Ibtihal Bsis Ismail, the HT presenter of the programme, loved this response so much that she ended the show by inviting Mogahed to talk about her future reports on the ‘Muslimah Dilemma’ show:

I think we’d love to have you on personally to discuss the findings of those surveys once they come out. I want to say Jazakallah kheir to my guest Dahlia Mogahed from the United States of America and Jazakallah kheir to Nasreen Nawaz, women’s media representative for Hizb ut-Tahrir.

This interview has already been a massive boost to HT. HT’s main UK website has put the youtube clip on the front-page of its website – as has HT’s branch in Australia. Good work Dalia!

How the hell are ordinary Muslims meant to challenge Islamist groups like HT (as they are constantly being urged to do) when the very same groups are simultaneously being promoted and empowered by those in positions of power in the Whitehouse and elsewhere?