A FAQ on Emgage for Muslim Leaders

For those who want to know what the issues are in a (hopefully) fair and comprehensive way.

Emgage is entering the Southern California community. It may be that Muslim leaders and donors around the country are still wondering about the organization. I wrote about Emgage in 2020, concluding it is not an organization Muslims should be supporting. To help guide decision-making, I will provide information about Emgage in an FAQ that I hope is balanced and easy to understand.

What is Emgage’s Mission?

Emgage is a “family of organizations' ' that includes a 501(c)(3), a 501(c)(4) (Emgage Action), which is a “social welfare organization' ' and a political action committee primarily used to endorse candidates. Emgage Action’s mission, according to its 990 (a tax form filed with the IRS is “Organizing and advocating for issues for the betterment of society.”  

Is Emgage a Zionist organization?

It would not be accurate to characterize them as a “Zionist organization.”  Individuals within the organization have been known to advocate for Israel, however, and have engaged in what has been called, in the parlance of Palestine activism, “normalizing” Zionism. Emgage, as an organization, does not deploy Zionist talking points and tends to use language that demonstrates support for Palestinians and their rights. 

Has Emgage Supported Zionist Candidates?

Yes. Zionist is defined here as individuals who support the apartheid regime in mandatory Palestine built on dispossession, expulsion, and oppression. Emgage has proudly supported candidates without consideration of the Palestine issue, and it has included anti-Palestinian candidates who support dispossession, violence, and apartheid through several election cycles. This includes Lizzie Fletcher,  Haley Stevens, and several others who have also been endorsed by pro-apartheid lobby organizations like AIPAC, J-Street and DMFI. 

Did Emgage coordinate its endorsement with Zionist groups?

There is no evidence of this. However, Palestine was not much of a priority for Emgage when selecting candidates to endorse. In my 2020 article, I pointed to a candidate survey of candidates from a previous year that asked only about five issues.  

1. If the candidate worked with Muslims in prior campaigns.

2. Did the candidate visit any place of worship for Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, African American or Arab Christians. 

3. Does the candidate support Trump’s travel ban? 

4. A question about mandatory minimum sentences for drug laws. 

5. If legislation can play a role in hate crimes.

It is not an especially difficult quiz for someone who supports apartheid and even genocide to pass.

Okay, but this was years ago. Emgage is likely different now. They will not endorse Zionist candidates anymore, right?

It is true that Emgage has evolved since that time, as any organization would. However, Imam Tom Facchine, a critic of Emgage, has asked for a pledge from Emgage that it will not endorse a Zionist candidate. Thus far, Emgage has refused to make such a pledge. 

So, supporting Zionist candidates makes Emgage worse than other Muslims operating in electoral politics?

Not necessarily. Muslims participating in electoral politics have supported Zionist candidates for decades. Emgage did not invent the practice. Muslim organizations have mostly not endorsed candidates until the advent of Emgage however, except for a handful that have come and gone over the years. The practice of individual wealthy Muslims, often people who have business with the government, endorsing and holding fundraisers for Zionist candidates has been going on for more than a generation.

Emgage supports Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), right?

Emgage’s position is that there should be a right to boycott, divestment, and sanctions for people who want to do that. Various people associated with Emgage have taken pains to show they do not boycott Israel, which was much of the point of the “Muslim Leadership Initiative” (MLI), which I describe below. A former Board member who was appointed as the Deputy Director of the Small Business Administration, Dilawar Syed, testified he disagreed Israel was an apartheid state and that he was committed to advancing “commercial interests with Israel.”  

Are there individuals within Emgage who can be described as Zionist?

Emgage has no known board members or employees who have publicly described themselves as “Zionist.”  Several critical individuals in Emgage have been associated with or have normalized Zionist organizations, including the Shalom Harman Institute (SHI), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and, according to reporting, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Two individuals associated with Emgage’s board (one no longer on the board because he took a job in government) have said things in support of Israel. None of this means the individuals are themselves “Zionists.” These things may be happening for non-ideological reasons. However, by the definition of a well-respected scholar, these activities appear to qualify as “Muslim Zionism.”

So, “associated with” or “normalizing” seems vague. What does it mean to be associated with a Zionist organization?

There are two distinct categories of “associated with” Zionist organizations, or what is often called “normalizing.”  The first is participating in “faith washing” events designed to divide the Muslim community on the Palestine issue, particularly the “Muslim Leadership Initiative,” or MLI. The second is individuals who have associated their names and labor towards furthering the goals of Islamophobic and Anti-Palestinian organizations.  This is what makes for “Muslim Zionism.”

Wait a minute, so some Emgage leaders have given their names and labor towards furthering the goals of anti-Palestinian and Islamophobic organizations? What do you mean?

One of the founders and the chair of Emgage Action, Khurram Wahed, had served for years on a board of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). This organization has a history of promoting both attacks against the Muslim community and Palestinian rights. Wahid was so proud of his affiliation with ADL, he advertised it on his website, which has since been taken offline, though the archived version is available here.  To learn more about the ADL and why affiliation with it could be a problem, read this description from Jewish Voice for Peace. 

Screenshot of Kurram Wahid’s blog

Wahid has removed the blog post and his entire website. There is also no evidence that Wahid currently serves the ADL. Middle East Eye interviewed Wahid about his and Emgage’s relationship with the ADL, which you can read here. The author noted that in the month before his article four years ago, Emgage had scrubbed its website of links to the ADL.

Wa’el Alzayat, the CEO of Emgage, has ties to Zionist institutions that span several years. He has served as an “expert” for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINP). This “think tank” was created by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its donors and has been described as part of the core of the Israel lobby in the United States. Alzayat’s last association with the organization was an article he co-wrote in 2017.  

Alzayat  has also served the American Jewish Committee (AJC) in its project known as the “Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council,” or MJAC. AJC is known to support both apartheid in Palestine and the genocide of Palestinians. The organization also has a record of giving notorious anti-Muslim personalities awards.  Both Alzayat’s association with AJC and with WINEP have been scrubbed from the respective websites, though the information remains available, is public, and has never been denied.  His name was removed (along with all other members) from the MJAC website only recently.

Another association does not have documentation but was reported by the Electronic Intifada (EI). According to EI, the Emgage Founder Farooq Mitha told people he had attended the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conferences and even joined it as a member. According to that report, Mitha did not answer questions about attending AIPAC. Neither Emgage nor Mitha has denied attendance at AIPAC conferences. Emgage has denied that the organization's leaders are currently members of AIPAC.  The organization has not rejected the allegations of attendance at AIPAC or Mitha’s previous alleged membership.

There are other associations with Zionist groups (some are now outdated as some may no longer be affiliated with Emgage) in the 2020 Drop Emgage petition.  

Is Emgage part of the “Muslim Leadership Initiative” (MLI) to “faithwash” apartheid and oppression of Palestinians?

No. Emgage has never, as an organization, participated in MLI, nor is MLI the kind of thing organizations ever join in. However, it was reported that at least four board members participated in MLI, including a founder and board chair. That chair apologized for the pain it caused.  He also stated that the board agreed in 2019 that no board members may attend MLI. 

So that is the whole problem? Leaders of the organization have Zionist affiliations and they scrubbed the record of those and apologized for MLI. What other problems do some Muslims have with Emgage? 

It would be difficult to express every objection given the large volume written about Emgage, they follow the following broad areas: 

A.            Concerns related to what seems like a close association with Zionist institutions (this is already discussed above).

B.            A conflict-of-interest problem regarding the Department of Defense and defense spending and contracting. 

C.           Emgage’s apparent non-Muslim control and funding.

D.           That much of the point of Emgage appears to be to engage is a sham to undermine the efforts of the Muslim community to build useful political influence.

What is the deal with these Department of Defense issues?

One of the founders, Farooq Mitha, is a longtime Department of Defense employee in a role connected with defense contracting. In the Biden Administration, he is the Director of an office that manages “small business” defense contracts. There have been concerns about this being a conflict of interest both internally within Emgage and, of course, externally. The Department of Defense is an agency that has been instrumental in violence committed against Muslims and others around the world. It is notable that Emgage’s policy stances mostly ignore the Department of Defense, including issues such as drone strikes or defense spending. However, recently, Emgage Action has expressed disappointment regarding providing weapons to Israel even as an Emgage Board member has a stake in delivering these weapons, which does appear to be a conflict of interest as those weapons are being provided in part by a board member. 

Is there more on this Department of Defense conflict of interest thing?

The apparent conflict of interest may go deeper than that. Khuram Wahid, another co-founder of Emgage, was running for local office when he appeared on a YouTube channel and stated that his company connects other companies with contracts at the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. According to Wahid, this included technology that would help provide optical equipment that would allow the Department of Defense to “see through clouds.”  This was a known limitation in drone warfare that caused children to be frightened of blue skies but not grey skies.  It is not apparent that Wahid is a defense contractor himself, instead, his business involves helping other companies to obtain contracts with the Department of Defense.

What does Emgage have to say about this Department of Defense thing?

Various Emgage statements addressing Muslim community concerns don’t address the issue. Wahid, in a Muslim lawyers group WhatsApp message, has said his description in the YouTube video was by way of example and did not happen. As to Mitha’s involvement in the Department of Defense, his position is public record, and Emgage has actively promoted it. Wa’el Alzayat, in a WhatsApp conversation, has indicated there is no problem with this at all and that Arabs and Muslims should “get their fair share” of Department of Defense contracts. Alzayat has also stated that he believes the focus on Emgage Founder Mitha is about “discrimination” because he is Nizari Ismaili. 

What is a Nizari Ismaili?

Nizari Ismailis are followers of the Aga Khan. This is a faith tradition distinct from Islam as understood by most Muslims, including an Imam with wide-ranging interpretive power that can (and have) eliminate things like Salah or Siyam.

Why should I care if an Emgage Board Member and founder is Nizari Ismaili? People can believe whatever they want.

There is no question a board member or founder of an organization can believe whatever they want and excluding someone from decision-making for a faith community because that person has a different faith tradition is discrimination. However, Muslim institutions have long been concerned about Muslims having leadership in the thought process of our institutions. It would not make sense for someone who does not believe in Salah to instruct Muslim children at a Masjid, or to lead a Masjid or a coalition of Islamic organizations. In Southern California, for example, the Islamic Shura Council has a requirement in bylaws for organizations to be founded by Muslims. This requirement of Muslims running Muslim organizations has been common throughout the entire history of Muslim organizations in the United States. Emgage itself has been on the receiving end of these concerns for years.

Indeed, such a requirement that people of the same faith tradition have leadership roles in organizations of the faith tradition exists in other religions as well and is not regarded as impermissible discrimination under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar state statutes. It would be a grievous violation of religious freedom to mandate people of other religious faiths have leadership roles in the institutions of a completely different religion.

However, many Muslims and nonprofit funders that work with Muslim organizations have promoted the notion that Islam is more of a subjective identity, and not a definable faith tradition. The terms “Muslim” and “Islam,” under this conception, have elastic meanings that can include people who don’t believe the Quran was revealed by Allah, that think “salah” is not something Muslims need to do, that there were Prophets after Muhammad ﷺ, or “secular Muslims,” “atheist Muslims” or groups who may have no beliefs or practices at all but “identify” as Muslim for whatever reason.  For such people, the notion that Muslim organizations and individuals determine who in leadership is or is not Muslim is offensive. Emgage tends to fit into this mold because it was both founded largely by non-Muslims and is run out of the private business of a non-Muslim family and appears to be funded primarily from outside the Muslim community.  

What do you mean it is run from the private business of a non-Muslim family? 

There have long been differences between how Emgage represents itself on its website and how tax forms are filed with the IRS. The Mitha family has a minor footprint or, in the case of Emgage Action, is entirely invisible on the website. In IRS filings for both Emgage Foundation, the 501(c)(3) organization and Emgage Action, the 501 (c)(4) “social welfare” organization, Amin Mitha is listed as not just a board member but the treasurer and the “Principal Officer” of both organizations under item F of the publicly available tax forms (to find it, go to Florida’s “check-a-charity” website.  According to the IRS, the principal officer in Form 990 is “the person who has ultimate responsibility for implementing the decisions of the organization’s governing body, or for supervising the management, administration, or operation of the organization.”   

According to the filings, Emgage Action and Emgage Foundation are in the same Florida motel owned by Amin Mitha, Farooq Mitha’s father. Farooq Mitha is a recognized board member and co-founder of Emgage Foundation and simultaneously the Director of the Office of Small Business Programs at the Department of Defense.

It may be that Emgage has not taken pains to obscure its control and direction by Amin Mitha and their management forgot to disclose this on their website all these years. However, they readily admit to this fact with the IRS.

What does Emgage say about the Mitha control issue?

The information about Amin Mitha having “ultimate responsibility” comes from Emgage itself in the form of its filings at the IRS. Wa’el Alzayat has claimed the board does not have much say in in the organization’s affairs, and the organization is staff-led and staff-run. While it is plausible that the boards of directors, as listed on the website, have little or no input in the organization, it is not likely that the Mitha family is not involved in the organization's thought process as he controls the purse strings for the organization per federal filings.

What does staff-led or staff-run mean?

It does not mean much. Staff are employees. They are doing a job, often for many hours with little pay. They do not determine the mission of the organization or the strategy of either nonprofit without a board. A CEO must answer to a board of directors. Organizations dependent on institutional funders must be responsive to those funders.

You mentioned that the organization is primarily funded from outside the Muslim community; what do you mean by that? 

Emgage Action, which has a form 990 that made its donors (who, under 990 rules, contributed more than $5,000) names available. Almost all the organization's more than $1,000,000 budget came from thirteen donors, and over 90% of it came from non-Muslim sources. Emgage Foundation, the 501(c)(3), also has a 990 with funder information included. While Al-Hibri Foundation and Pillars fund (which includes non-Muslim foundation support) are significant donors, the organization is overwhelmingly funded from outside the Muslim community. Emgage Foundation’s largest donor by far is the Houston Endowment ($800,000), Open Society Foundation ($300,000), and the Tide Foundation ($245,700). The Liberal Zionist Naomi & Nehemiah Cohen Foundation is also a significant funder ($50,000) as are several other non-Muslim foundations. While Emgage foundation appears to have more smaller contributors than Emgage Action (likely because donations are tax-deductible and Emgage does hold fundraisers), at its core non-Muslims financially support it.

So, what if an organization gets grants from nonprofit funders? That is a good thing, right?

There are concerns about Emgage’s funding. The first is that nonprofit organizations' priorities mirror their funders' priorities. It would not make sense for large, sophisticated funders to fund an organization otherwise. Agreements related to these funders have not been made public. Emgage representatives have explained this is because they do not want their enemies to know what their strategy is. Another concern is communal sovereignty. What are the consequences when people who are not Muslim, who are funded by non-Muslims (but hire Muslims as staff) get to speak for the Muslim community? It is a form of political vassalage that perhaps many Muslims would not want.

But at least the organization is suitable for organizing, getting out the vote, and getting more Muslims involved in politics, right?

Anyone interested in how Emgage has run its political operation should read former Emgage Florida Operations Director Olivia Cantu’s assessment of the organization.  Emgage had its start in Florida, where it had virtually no grassroots support and was usually banned from Muslim spaces. However, this did not prevent the organization from claiming itself as the representative of the Muslim community. Cantu said the organization ran a get-out-the-vote operation (GOTV) using sham data. Emgage could not engage Muslims in the political process because it did not have legitimacy. It could only impede others who do that work.

Sham data? Are there other examples of Emgage acting in unethical ways or is this just one disgruntled employee saying things?

In my investigation in 2020 I learned of complaints regarding a wide range of unethical practices, which you can read about here.  These included some petty and weird things like selling tickets to someone else’s event and keeping the money, Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theory fearmongering with politicians to prevent Muslims from engaging with politicians, and guerilla tactics at Masajid they were not authorized to be at. Emgage has also been on different sides of the same issue. In 2020 they endorsed Bernie Sanders in the Primary but the founder and still board member became the “Muslim” representative to the Biden campaign.

Okay, so things happened. But in politics, it is kind of normal for people to engage in dishonesty, double dealing and kneecapping perceived opponents to get ahead, right?

Yes. I suppose it is.

Why do Muslim organizations collaborate with Emgage if they are so harmful?

Emgage was widely excluded from Muslim spaces throughout Florida (Emgage’s home base). The organization separated from the US Council of Muslim Organizations because activists highlighted many of its problems. More recently, the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California board disinvited Emgage from using its meeting space in Southern California. 

There are three main (but not exclusive) reasons Muslim organizations will take the reputational risk inside the Muslim community to collaborate with Emgage. 

• Farooq Mitha has served as a “Muslim representative” to both the Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton presidential campaigns. Organizations with good relationships with Emgage may see themselves as having a better chance at invitations to the White House. 

• Emgage has made investments in data on the Muslim community and will share information with friendly organizations that are in the business of voter outreach and GOTV efforts.

• Muslim organizations that seek grants from large institutional funders that have favored Emgage cannot afford to be unfriendly to them as funders want organizations in their portfolios to collaborate and work towards the common objectives of the institutional funders. This is one of the reasons why organizations that chose to be funded by institutional funders end up not being “grassroots” as the priorities of institutional funders (Open Society, Tide, Houston Endowment etc.)  may not be the same as the priorities of the Muslim community.

Emgage however, claims to be an effective and competent organization that progressive politicians, including Muslims in public office, like to work with. They support “Squad” politicians popular in the Muslim community. This may also be a reason to collaborate with Emgage, though it is up to the individual Muslim leader to determine if working with an organization with this kind of leadership and history is justified. Whatever decision you make, I hope you make it with excellence.

P.S. Before you go, if you think this article was valuable in helping you learn about an issue of importance to the Muslim community, please share it with Muslim leaders you know. They may also find it useful.