New FBI Hate Crime Stats: Another Blow to Islamist Fictions

ucr bannerIslamist Watch Blog –  by David J. Rusin  •  Dec 15, 2014

The FBI’s newly released hate crime statistics for 2013 offer a fresh example of how reality refuses to conform to the dubious narrative of widespread Muslim victimization at the hands of American bigots. As in previous years, most hate crimes were not religiously motivated, most religiously motivated hate crimes were anti-Jewish, and Muslims suffered fewer total incidents than many groups and fewer per capita than gays or Jews. Anti-Islamic crimes did not involve greater violence than others and have not become more frequent. A glance at the details:

  • Of the 5,928 incidents of hate crime tabulated in 2013, 135 (2.3 percent) were anti-Islamic, an increase of five over the prior year but still slightly below the annual average of 139 from 2002 to 2011.
  • The small rise in recorded anti-Islamic incidents could be attributable to improved data collection rather than a true uptick. Reports submitted by law enforcement agencies covered a population of 295 million Americans in 2013, 18.6 percent higher than in 2012.

  • There were 1,031 incidents inspired by religion last year, 625 (60.6 percent) of which were anti-Jewish. Anti-Islamic ones constituted just 13.1 percent.
  • Anti-Islamic incidents were also outnumbered by those targeting blacks (1,856), whites (653), gay men (750), lesbians (160), LGBTs in general (277), Hispanics (331), and people of other ethnicities (324). Anti-Asian incidents (135) equaled anti-Islamic ones.
  • Based on a 2013 estimate of 2.95 million Muslims derived from Pew’s 2011 figure and typical growth of 100,000 per year, there were 4.6 anti-Islamic incidents per 100,000 Muslims in 2013, the same as 2012’s rate and lower than the average of 6.0 per 100,000 for 2002–11. The 2013 rate for Muslims was less than half that for Jews (9.6 per 100,000 for a population of roughly 6.5 million) and homosexuals/bisexuals (11.0 per 100,000, assuming that they comprise 3.5 percent of the U.S. population). The rate for blacks was similar to that of Muslims (4.5 per 100,000 for a population of 41.6 million).
  • Anti-Islamic hate crimes were no more violent than others in 2013. Of the 6,933 offenses spanning all hate crimes, 734 (10.6 percent) were aggravated assaults and 1,720 (24.8 percent) were simple assaults. The 165 anti-Islamic offenses mirrored this breakdown: 17 (10.3 percent) were aggravated assaults and 41 (24.8 percent) were simple assaults. Further, none of the five deaths in 2013 resulted from anti-Islamic hate crimes.

On April 15, 2013, Muslim terrorists murdered three and injured hundreds at the Boston Marathon, promptingfamiliar warnings about an imminent anti-Muslim backlash. The FBI’s findings are proof that such collective punishment did not materialize — as it almost never does. How have Islamist groups greeted the FBI data? With silence. It is the sound of disappointment on the part of radicals who need Muslim victims, preferably real ones, to serve as human shields for the Islamist agenda. Bad news for Islamists is once again good news for the rest of us.

“Islamophobia” Joins the Rainbow Coalition

IslamophobiaThreat-300x181Jihad Watch, by Andrew Harrod, DECEMBER 4, 2014:

“Same-sex marriage bans” and “anti-sharia/anti-‘foreign law’” bills seek “to disenfranchise historically marginalized groups,” according to the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU)’s latest “Islamophobia” study, “Islamophobia: A Threat to All.” An audience of around fifty at a recent panel discussion on the study at Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) witnessed an unconvincing attempt to integrate combatting “Islamophobia” into a broad leftist coalition.

The study’s “manufacturing bigotry” section analyzes correlations between “restrictive legislative agendas” in American state legislatures across six areas: “voter identification,” “immigration laws,” “right-to-work,” “laws restricting abortion rights and access,” and the aforementioned topics. Assessing the study, panel moderator Dalia Mogahed—ISPU research director and longstandinganti-Israel apologist for radical Islam—proclaimed that an “injustice to one is really a threat to all.” ISPU, she added, is however “focused on the Muslim-American community.”

Lead study researcher Saeed Khan dismissed American alarm over sharia law encroachments as prejudice. This lecturer in the department of classical and modern languages, literatures, and cultures at Wayne State University, Detroit is a regular speaker at the University of California, Berkeley’s annual Islamophobia conferences. In light of Obama’s successful elections, Khan strained credulity by predicting that the future replacement of the country’s historic white protestant majority with a “majority-minority country” would cause a “moral panic that America is irreversibly changing.” “Islamophobia within this broader demographic shift,” he argued, “is not really an isolated or unique phenomenon.” Accordingly, one of his PowerPoint presentations recommended that Muslims, “explore potential intersections with other issues,” however unrelated to Islam.

Georgetown labor historian Joseph McCartin—Jesuit employer and Catholic undergraduate education notwithstanding—portrayed anti-sharia efforts as “connected to other regressive policies,” such as opposition to abortion and homosexuality. According to McCartin, homosexuals, feminists, and others allegedly targeted by “regressive policies . . . have to stand together” with sharia’s defenders. Laughably, in his imagination, the “things that unite us are more important than the things that divide us.” Drag queens, burka-clad Muslims, and union workers of the world unite!

In leftist jargon, McCartin described the “othering” of Islam within a “carefully orchestrated attack” on workers and voting rights, while assuming that enforced unionization and a lack of identification safeguards, respectively, best protect these interests. Referencing past animosity towards Irish-Catholic immigrants, while seemingly oblivious to modern American diversity, McCartin reiterated the worn out trope that Americans are only comfortable with minorities “as long as they don’t have power and voice.”

National Black Caucus of State Legislators policy director Ajenai Clemmons, meanwhile, was “incredibly grateful” for a study that is “deeply reaffirming to our experience” of “structural racism.” A “large part of the electorate,” Clemmons claimed, advocates “policies that are especially destructive to people who don’t look like them,” such as racially neutral right-to-work laws. She dismissed voter identification laws, or “legislation ostensibly combatting voter fraud,” as merely “intensifying efforts to suppress the vote.”

While decrying “ultra-conservative messages,” Clemmons praised Democratic congressman Keith Ellison as a “great” example of a Muslim politician. She seconded McCartin’s superficial unity appeal, emphasizing “how important it is for all our communities to collaborate” by “seeing your fate and stakes as one” in “transformational coalition building.” Fortunately, no rousing “kumbaya” rendition followed.

Madihha Ahussein, an attorney with Muslim Advocates (MA), praised the study’s findings that Muslims like her—or those supposedly suffering from “Islamophobia”—are “not alone.” Accordingto the Investigative Project on Terrorism, MA “reflexively criticizes counter-terrorism investigations.” Ahussein claimed there had been a “noted increase” in FBI-recorded anti-Muslim hate crimes since 2010, although 2012 figures show the majority of America’s religiously motivated hate crimes targeting Jews—a longstanding trend. Lamenting that the “industry of hate . . . particularly the anti-Muslim hate network, is very large” and “extremely vocal and active,” she warned that a “huge population on the Internet . . . can mobilize very quickly . . . within seconds.” Rather than the term “Islamophobia,” Ahassein pointed out that MA prefers “anti-Muslim hate or bigotry,” for Islam’s critics “are not afraid of Muslims” and are “very deliberate.”

Jonathan Brown, ACMCU Chair of Islamic Civilization, boasted that co-host ACMCU is a “huge supporter” of research on “civil liberties, Islamophobia,” and “bigotry.” He argued that “to deprive a group of Americans of rights” via “Islamophobia” calls into question American exceptionalism, or Americans’ belief “that there is something special about their country.” Apparently for Brown, victimhood promotion looms larger than America’s considerable human rights legacy.

Although IPSU’s study seeks to foment the type of leftist-Muslim alliance seen throughout the world, most recently in Ferguson, Missouri’s racial unrest, reception attendees indirectly demonstrated the unwieldiness of this coalition. Deepa Iyer, for example, formerly led South Asian Americans Leading Together, a group that has collaborated with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a radical faux civil rights group. Yet, demonstrating that not all South Asian “people of color” think alike, Harsh Voruganti’s Hindu-American Foundation has focused on Muslimrepression of Hindus.

Such disparate and, at times, mutually contradictory ethnic and political interests cannot effectively coalesce with some Muslims’ concerns, genuine or not, over “Islamophobia.” Muslims, in turn, risk alienating conservative Americans with ill-considered leftist political alignments. Yet anti-Western Islamic groups have no choice for support and legitimacy other than the political left, given the unifying hatred of Judeo-Christian, bourgeois society in the United States, Israel, and elsewhere. Observers of Islamist groups should carefully consider these political tactics.

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project; follow him on twitter at @AEHarrod. He wrote this essay for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Profs Blame ISIS on ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Grievances’

reza-450x241By Cinnamon Stillwell:

President Obama’s infamous proclamation that ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) is “not Islamic” was received sympathetically within the ranks of Middle East studies. While many scholars of Islam and the Middle East have condemned ISIS’s heinous actions, a stubborn refusal to acknowledge their theological underpinnings lingers. Those who do concede ISIS’s Islamic supremacism are branded “Islamphobes.” Others attribute ISIS’s rampage of mass murder, beheadings, rape, slavery, and strict Sharia law in pursuit of a caliphate to Western-inspired “grievances” or “root causes.”

John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, is at the forefront of such obfuscation. Disregarding ISIS’s adherence to Quranic literalism, Esposito declared:

I do not think that this is a very Islamic vision at all. . . . Theirs is a kind of religion that is extraordinarily full of violence and abuse that is not in accordance with the Quran, the traditions of the Prophet or even with Islamic Law.

Hatem Bazian, director of the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project at the University of California, Berkeley, lived up to his title by invoking victimhood. Bazian claimed that:

When Islamophobes point to the Koran and Islam as the problem, they are epistemically reinforcing ISIS’s claims and also pushing every Muslim into the same categorization. . . . For me, religion is a rationalization rather than the root cause.

Responding to British Prime Minister David Cameron’s public acknowledgement that British Muslims are joining ISIS, University of Michigan history professorJuan Cole ranted, “It’s just a way of beating up on the Muslims in the UK. . . . Cameron is grandstanding about this and it’s Islamophobia, it’s just racism.” Perhaps Cole is unaware that Cameron, speaking at a reception for British Muslims, kowtowed to political-correctness by declaring that ISIS has “nothing to do with the great religion of Islam, a religion of peace.”

Meanwhile, Sahar F. Aziz, Texas A&M University law professor, condemned those who are “blindly blaming religion . . . rather than root causes,” lamenting that, “Thousands of miles away from the Middle East, it is tempting for Americans to view the atrocities committed by the Islamic State (ISIS) as further evidence that something is wrong with Islam.” Instead, she asserted, “The politics of authoritarianism, rather than religion, explain the rise of ISIS.” Given that ISIS arose in a power vacuum, there is little basis for blaming authoritarianism.

Going to ridiculous lengths, Omid Safi, director of Duke University’s Islamic Studies Center, faults humanity itself:

I am mindful of the fact that much of the Islamophobic discourse of today holds Muslims in the West accountable for atrocities of ISIS. In that context, it makes a fundamental mistake. . . . All of us, Muslims and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and people of no faith and people of occasional faith, we are all responsible.

That is, since everyone is responsible for ISIS, no one is responsible.

After conceding that “Muslims have a responsibility to speak out against ISIS,” Safi then entreated,

[A]ll of us to speak out with the same vehemence . . . about the victims of the American drones, about the victims of the allies of the United States? Can we mourn Palestinians? Can we mourn Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin? Can we mourn the 2.5 million Americans caught in a penal industrial complex?

A better question for Safi would be whether there is any unrelated societal ill that cannot be associated with condemning ISIS?

University of California, Riverside creative writing professor Reza Aslan denied that ISIS has any appeal whatsoever to devout Muslims, marveling over “how little religion plays a role in this group, how little the idea of reading the Koran or praying or those kinds of things play a significant role on the ground among these militants.” Granting that “religion is the sort of underlying, unifying aspect of it,” Aslan then contradicted himself: “But the idea that ISIS is drawing excessively religious people to it is factually incorrect.” Elsewhere, he alluded to the “grievances . . . that a lot of Muslims around the world have” and warned that ISIS’s appeal would remain, “unless those grievances can be addressed.”

Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University, suggested that Muslim scholars respond to ISIS by proclaiming:

What you are doing, killing innocent people, implementing so-called “Sharia” or the so-called “Islamic State”, this is against everything that is coming from Islam. . . . It is not a caliphate. It is just people playing with politics referring to religious sources.

While it is indeed necessary for Muslim moderates—a group that does not include Ramadan—to condemn ISIS, it is self-defeating to deny the Islamic basis for its behavior.

Read more at Frontpage

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

CAIR publishes list of American ‘Islamophobes’ — Will it become a ‘hit list’ for Islamic State ‘lone wolves’?

cair-isis

There is a growing concern that converts to Islam in America and Canada are ready, ideologically willing and certainly able to conduct individual attacks against soldiers, police and innocent civilians. This week the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has called for increased security at some federal buildings. The Associated Press reports:

Security will be increased at various federal government buildings in Washington and other major American cities, the Homeland Security Department announced Tuesday in what it described as a “precautionary step.” The move came one week after a gunman in Ottawa fatally shot a soldier as he stood as a ceremonial guard at Ottawa’s National War Memorial, then stormed the Parliament building. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the shooting a terrorist attack.

As Mohammedans wage jihad against U.S. and Canadian citizens, in the name of Allah, the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has published a list of American individuals and organizations it considers to be “Islamophobic.” The new CAIR website is Islamophobia.org.

The purpose of the CAIR website is, “[T]o monitor and challenge the growing anti-Muslim bigotry in American society. CAIR’s Islamophobia.org site presents detailed profiles of a number of individuals and institutions involved in the American Islamophobia network.” CAIR is characterize by some as a “moderate” Islamic organization. An anonymous quote on the internet states:

A radical Muslim wants to behead you. A moderate Muslim wants a radical Muslim to behead you.

On the list are Floridians Allen West, Guy Rogers, USF Professor Jonathan Matusitz, Dr. Rich Swier, Sam Kharoba and Tom Trento. The Islamic State has called for attacks against the United States targeting those who defame Mohammed. Are these men, women and organizations on the CAIR list designed to evoke the deadly passions of those who have joined the Islamic State in the U.S.?

Question: Will the Islamic State use the CAIR list of Islamophobes to attack these individuals?

Those individuals and organizations listed by CAIR as Islamophobic include:

soin logo

Ali Sina A member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations, Sina believes, “there is NOTHING good in Islam and that it is all evil.”

Allen West A former Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Allen believes, ” Islam does not coexist.”

Anders Gravers A member of the president’s council of Stop Islamization of Nations who also heads Stop Islamization of Europe.

Ann Coulter A conservative commentator who suggested that “we should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

Ashraf Rameleh A member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations. When speaking about the September 11th attacks he said “they are not terrorists, they are jihad. They are for the Quran.”

Babu Suseelani a member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations. In 2012 Suseelan told an audience “If we do not kill the bacteria, the bacteria will kill us. Muslims will breed like rats and they will be a majority.”

bill-maher-overtime-post-show2Bill Maher Bill Maher hosts a political satire program, Real Time with Bill Maher, on HBO. Despite his claim to hold progressive opinions, Maher consistently demonizes and stigmatizes the Muslim community.

Brian Kilmeade A Fox News Channel commentator. In June 2013, Kilmeade told a leader of the English Defence League, an anti-Muslim group known for violent protests, “We got your back.”

Brigitte Gabriel The head of Act for America. Gabriel has said, “America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam.”

Bryan Fischer The director of issues analysis at the American Family Association. According to Fischer, “Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam.”

Carl Goldberg A member of the Arizona chapter of Act for America. According to an announcement for an October 2013 event, Goldberg can prove that “Islam is not just a religion but also a totalitarian and imperialistic ideology.”

Clare Lopez Lopez is the vice president for issues and analysis at the Center for Security Policy. She also a board member at the Clarion Project. In 2013, Lopez told an audience, “When people in other bona fide religions follow their doctrines they become better people — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Jews. When Muslims follow their doctrine, they become jihadists.”

Cliff Kincaid A member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations. In 2013, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups in the United States, listed Kincad among the “30 new activists heading up the radical right.”

Constance Gavras The director of the Illinois chapter of Act for America.

Daniel Pipes The founder and director of the Middle East Forum. Pipes is also connected to the National Review, Clarion Project, and Washington Times. Pipes is the grandfather of Islamophobia in the United States. In 1990 he wrote, “Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene…All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”

Dave Agema A former Michigan state legislator, Agema now represents his state as a national committeeman of the Republican National Committee. In early 2014, Agema made anti-Muslim comments on his Facebook account: “Have you ever seen a Muslim do anything that contributes positively to the American way of life?

David Horowitz The founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that tracks hate in the United States, names Horowitz “the godfather of the modern anti-Muslim movement.”

David Yerushalmi A co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center and employee of the Center for Security Policy. Yerushalmi beleives, “Our greatest enemy today is Islam.”

Debbie Anderson The leader of the Minneapolis chapter of ACT for America.

Debbie Robinson A member of the president’s council of Stop Islamization of Nations. Robinson’s Q Society of Australia asserts, “Islam is not just another religion, but also a totalitarian ideology with a global agenda.”

Dorrie O’Brien O’Brien acts as a national mentor for ACT for America. According to O’Brien “Islam…is a poisoned well.”

Frank Gaffney The founder and president of the Center for Security Policy. Gaffney is also connected to the Washington Times, and Clarion Project. Gaffney has advocated renewing the House Un-American Activities Committee, a discredited McCarthy-era congressional committee that President Truman once described as “the most un-American thing in the country today.”

Glenn Beck Beck hosts the Glenn Beck show on the Blaze. In February, 2011, Beck hosted anti-Muslim speaker Joel Richardson on his Fox News program and the two “tied Islam to the Antichrist in the new testament.”

Guy Rodgers The executive director of ACT for America. In 2010, Rodgers “contended that Muslims should be treated differently because their legal system is inherently flawed.”

James Lafferty Originally known for his work with the Virginia Anti-Shariah Taskforce, Lafferty is now with both the American Freedom Defense Initiative and Jihad Watch.

State Rep. John Bennett of Oklahoma (R-Sallisaw) According to Bennett, Islam is “a cancer in our nation that needs to be cut out.”

John Guandolo The founder of Understanding the Threat. Guandolo is a former FBI agent who trains law enforcement officers to believe in conspiracy theories such as his beleif that CIA Director Brennan is a secret Muslim.

Jonathan Matusitz The membership director for the central Florida chapter of Act for America and a professor at the University of Central Florida. Matusitz claims that Muslims “procreate like mushrooms after the rain” and that “the problem is Islam.”

Kamal Saleem A board member of Former Muslims United. In October 2012, Right Wing Watch posted a video of Saleem and noted that in that video, “Saleem alleged that Obama’s top speech writer and Sasha and Malia’s babysitter are both Islamic fundamentalists that are wielding secret power.”

Kevin Carroll A member of the president’s council of Stop Islamization of Nations.

Lauren Green An anchor on the Fox News Channel.

Mano Bakh A key individual with the California group Concerned American Citizens. On its website, the group asserts, “The real source of the devastating 9/11 attack is the Islamic Ideology as prescribed in Quran.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) A Minnesota Republican, Bachmann is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. In June 2012, Bachmann led a group of House Republicans on a series of five letters to federal inspectors alleging that the Muslim Brotherhood was infiltrating the U.S. government. The allegations primarily centered on an aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and were soundly rejected by Republican leadership.

Mike Huckabee A host on the Fox News Channel and former governor of Arkansas. Huckabee referred to Islam as the “antithesis of the gospel of Christ.” He also seemed to compare Muslim prayer being allowed in a church to the showing of pornographic films.

Nina Cunningham Cunningham serves on the boards of many anti-Islam organizations, including the Center for Security Policy, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and also the Clarion Project.

Nonie Darwish A founder of Former Muslims United. Darwish asserts that “Islam should be fought and should be conquered and defeated and annihilated.”

Oskar Freysinger A member of the board of directors of Stop Islamization of Nations. He played a leading role in the movement to ban Islamic minarets in Switzerland.

Pamela Geller The cautic mouthpiece of the U.S. Islamophobia network, Geller believes, “Hitler was inspired by Islam.”She blogs atAtlas Shrugs and is a leader with the American Freedom Defense Initiative, Jihad Watch, and Stop the Islamization of Nations. Note: Geller also heads Stop Islamization of America, but this entity is identified as an AFDI project.

Rep. Peter King (R-.N.Y.) Peter King represents a district centered in New York’s, Long Island. He served as chairman of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee from 2010-2012. King has maintained that “80%, 85% of the mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists,” and that average Muslims “are loyal,” but “don’t come forward, they don’t tell the police what they know”. Additionally in 2007, Representative King said, “Unfortunately, we have too many mosques in this country.”

Richard Swier Swier is the director of the Sarasota, Fla. chapter of ACT for America. (EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Rich Swier has not been the Director of the Sarasota ACT for America chapter for 8 years.)

Rick Joyner Joyner is the president of the Oak Initiative. He is also the founder/director of Morningstar Ministries and the founder/director of Heritage National Ministries. He has authored more than forty books. His book The Harvest lays out some of his views on Islam: “Islamic terrorists will permeate the West with teams that target Christian organizations and leaders. This is in preparation for an Islamic assault upon the entire world. They will compile computer data on every Christian leader who has any kind of extra-local influence (i.e. newsletters, television or radio outreach).

Robert “Raphael” Shore A member of Clarion Project’s board of directors.

Robert Spencer A prolific member of the U.S. Islamophobia network, Spencer runs the Jihad Watch web site and is also connected with the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, and Stop Islamization of Nations.Spencer has referred to Islam’s Prophet Muhammad as a “con man. Someone who is knowing [sic] that what he is saying is false, but is fooling his followers.” In the same video he asserts, “From a historical standpoint, it is not even clear that Muhammad existed.”

Roger Ailes Ailes is the president and CEO of Fox News Channel. According to a source who spoke to Rolling Stone, “He has a personal paranoia about people who are Muslim — which is consistent with the ideology of his network.”

Ryan Mauro Mauro is a staff member at the Clarion Project.

Sam Kharoba Kharoba is the founder of the Counter Terrorism Operations Center. He claims to have trained “over 20,000 federal, state and local law enforcement officers. Kharoba has no formal academic degrees in Islamic studies and no experience in law enforcement. His only claim of any qualification is that he has a pre-university level certificate in Arabic culture, but Arabic culture is not Islam; in fact, only 20 percent of the world’s Muslims are Arabs. Upon review, it was found that large sections of Kharoba’s training manual were word-for-word identical to unreliable web-based sources. The investigation found his most common source was Wikipedia.

Scott Saunders Saunders is affilliated with the Virginia Beach, Va. chapter of Act for America.

Shalom Lewis Shalom Lewis is a cleric at the Congregation Etz Chaim synagogue in Marietta, Georgia. Etz Chaim’s website states Lewis “generates a caring warmth”, but his hateful speech about Islam is alarming and barbaric.

Stephanie Reis Reis is the Virginia State Director for Act for America. In 2010, as part of her welcome message for ACT’s Oklahoma chapter, Reis wrote, “The ideology, politics and religion of Islam has one purpose – to bring the world into submission to Islam and under its laws.”

Stephen Coughlin Now a fellow at the Center for Security Policy, Coughlin holds the beleif that belief that Islam “obligates Muslims to use violence in the name of spreading or defending the faith.”

Steven Crowder A Fox News Channel commentator, Crowder alleges “the real problem is the Quran.”

Steven Emerson The founder of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Upon reviewing a book he wrote, the New York Times determined that Emerson has “an unfamiliarity with the Middle East and a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias”.

Timothy Wildmon The president of the American Family Association, Wildmon has said, “[Islam] is, in fact, a religion of war, violence, intolerance, and physical persecution of non-Muslims.”

Tommy Robinson A member of the president’s council of Stop Islamization of America. Founder of the English Defence League (EDL), Robinson was jailed in 2013 for “having entered the United States illegally using someone else’s passport” and again in 2014 for mortgage fraud.

Tom Trento Trento is the founder and director of The United West. He believes mosques exist to wage a “cultural jihad” against America.

Usama Dakdok According to the web site of Dakdok’s Straight Way of Grace Ministry one of the group’s goals is to “expose Islam for what it is, and yes it is worse than a cancer, and this can be shown clearly in the reading of the Qur’an and theHadith.”

Wafa Sultan Sultan is connected to both Former Muslims United and Stop Islamization of Nations. She says, “I don`t see any difference between radical Islam and regular Islam…You cannot be American and Muslim at the same time.”

Walid Shoebat The founder of the Forum for Middle East Understanding, Shoebat is the author of “The case for Islamophobia,’ a book published in March 2013. Shoebat’s training and speaking events are promoted using his credentials and his “background” as a former PLO terrorist who converted to Christianity. In 2011, CNN researchers “found no evidence” to support Shoebat’s trademark claim of being a “former PLO terrorist.”

Former Lieutenant General William Boykin A board member of the Oak Initiative. Boykin asserts that “[Islam] should not be protected under the First Amendment,” that there should be “no mosques in America,” that Islam is a “totalitarian way of life,” and that there can be no interfaith dialogue or cooperation between Muslims and Christians.

Zuhdi Jasser Jasser is founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a board member of the Clarion Project Under Jasser’s leadership, AIFD is embedded with groups that are dedicated to spreading false information, fear, and distrust of Islam and Muslims.

U.S. Hamas Targets Americans – FBI Silent

obama-300x187UTT, by John Guandolo, Oct. 21, 2014:

Hamas in the United States – doing business as CAIR – has again targeted Americans by publishing a list of “Islamophobes” and promoting it within the Islamic community and beyond.  UTT Founder John Guandolo is on this list.

This is a public call for the people on the list to be killed for the crime of “Slander” in Islam.

As UTT has previously reported, Sharia (Islamic Law) defines “Slander” as follows:  “Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person person he would dislike…’Do not slander one another’ (Koran 49:12)…(Slander) is to mention of your brother that which he would dislike…The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim.  He does not betray him, lie to him, or hang back from coming to his aid.” [Umdat al Salik, The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, r2.0-2.6)

Slander is a capital crime under Islamic Law.

Many of you may be aware of writers, artists, politicians, and others who have been killed or attempts made on their lives for “Slandering” Islam.  Theo van Gogh was killed for making a film.  Dutch Parlimentarian Geert Wilders has a permanent security detail to protect him from Muslims for speaking about the threat from jihad in the Netherlands, including his production of the movie “Fitna.”

Here in America, businesses, politicians, pastors, and our leaders have fallen prey to this intimidation from Islam by self-silencing a truthful debate about real threats from within the Islamic community. The threat of being called an “Islamophobe” is a threat of future violence.

The largest international body in the world second only to the UN, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), has officially defined “Islamophobia” as “Slander” under Islamic Law.  The OIC is made up of all 57 Islamic states in the world (56 plus Palestine which they consider a state).  The OIC is now pushing for deterrent punishments for “Islamophobia” at the international level.

To be officially labeled an “Islamophobe” by the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas entities, like CAIR, is to be publicly accused of “Slander” under Sharia.  CAIR is openly calling the individuals on their “Islamophobia” site “Slanderers of Islam.”

This is an overt threat to every person on CAIR’s list.

Emails to the FBI reporting this have, as of today, gone unanswered.  FBIHQ is probably in a meeting with ISNA, MPAC, CAIR, and ICNA to plan out next year’s FBI training curriculum to ensure the Bureau doesn’t offend anyone in the Muslim community.

Also see:

THE IDIOCY OF ISLAM’S GREAT DEFENDERS

ben-affleck-hbo-real-timeBreitbart, by BEN SHAPIRO:

On Friday night, Bill Maher hosted atheist author Sam Harris, actor Ben Affleck, former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof to discuss Maher’s rant last week in which he discussed the violence of radical Islam and the prevalence of belief in radical Islam. Harris sided with Maher; Maher defended his comments.

Affleck, Kristof, and Steele, however, all suggested that Maher’s criticism of Islam went too far. Steele said that moderate Muslims just don’t receive media coverage. Affleck actually suggested that Maher’s criticisms of Islam were akin to calling someone a “shifty Jew.” Kristof said that because Maher and Harris had the temerity to quote polls about acceptance of anti-Muslim violence by Muslims all over the world, he was talking “a little bit of the way white racists talk about African-Americans.”

Maher, correctly, stated, “What you’re saying is, ‘because they’re a minority, we shouldn’t criticize.’” He added that Islam is the “only religion that acts like the Mafia that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book. There’s a reason why Ayaan Hirsi Ali needs bodyguards 24/7.”

After 9/11, Americans wondered why the Bush and Clinton administrations had failed to connect the dots. Perhaps it’s because the culture of political correctness means that we must see every dot as disconnected, rather than as part of a broader intellectual and philosophical framework. If you stand too close to a Seurat painting, you’re likely to miss the fact that you’re looking at a Sunday Afternoon on the Island of la Grande Jatte, rather than a random series of colored dots.

By acting as though terrorists and their supporters are outliers, occasional needles hidden within massive haystacks, we fail to make policy based upon reality. The politically correct mob insists we look at terrorist incidents as occasional blips, rather than outgrowths of a dangerous ideology that must be uprooted completely. And so we miss signals. We miss red flags.

Now, it is possible that our politicians lie to us. It is possible that they see the patterns and monitor those patterns. It’s possible they understand the radical Islamic funding of mosques all over the world, the recruitment of Muslims across the planet to support jihad.

But those lies – if they are lies – have consequences. They are parroted by fools, both left and right, who cite Bush and Clinton and Obama and all the rest for the proposition that Islam means peace and that Islamic terror groups are not Islamic. Instead, they claim, Islamic terrorists are merely crazy folks. Which means we don’t have to take their ideology seriously, their appeal seriously, or their outreach seriously.

And so we don’t. That’s why the State Department released an ad in early September showing crucifixions, Muslims being shot in the head, a blown-up mosque, and a beheaded body. Apparently, the State Department believed their own press: they believed that by castigating ISIS as an un-Islamic outlier, they could convince potential allies to stay away. That’s idiocy. ISIS releases precisely the same sort of videos as recruitment efforts – the Islamic terrorists understand that they are, in fact, Islamic. So do those they target.

In order to defend an ideology or a religion, one should know something about the ideology or religion. Ben Affleck, Nicholas Kristof, and Michael Steele are not Islamic scholars. Neither are George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton. In fact, when it comes to points of Islamic law, any average member of ISIS likely knows more than any of the aforementioned defenders of Islam.

The West cannot be the great defender of Islam, because we have no capacity to slice radical Islam out of broader Islam. We are radically unqualified to do so. We can only fight those who share an ideology dedicated to our destruction. And defending that broader ideology by downplaying a so-called “fringe minority” only emboldens those of the radical minority.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.orgFollow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

 

Published on Oct 3, 2014 by Dole Mite

Also see:

OIC Secretary General Warns Chicago Audience Not to Criticize Islam

sheik

Picture taken at the Chicago Club (81 East Van Buren Street, Chicago, Illinois 60605) where the Chicago Council on Global Affairs regularly holds events

Center For Security Policy:

Just a week after the 13th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, the new Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Iyad Amin Madani, addressed a select audience at an American Islamic College (AIC)-sponsored event at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. In a carefully-crafted message delivered on 17 September 2014, in which the OIC Secretary General was to discuss contemporary challenges facing the Muslim world, he charged that “Americans are not terribly famous for caring about the rest of the world.” Echoing lines promoted by the U.S. administration, Madani also declared that the Islamic State (IS) has no nexus with Islam and issued a warning to those critical of Islam. He also characterized Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in Gaza as illegal.

The AIC, known for its religious interfaith dialogue program in Chicago involving leadership figures from the Muslim Brotherhood, was established in 1981 as the only Islamic institution in the U.S. authorized to grant university degrees. Likewise, its relationship with the OIC is not a new one. In an earlier chapter of their collaborative relationship, the OIC and AIC co-sponsored a conference focused on “The Role of the OIC and the Scope for Its Relations with American Muslims” in September 2010. The following year in September 2011, the AIC and OIC joint conference Islam and Muslims in America included Obama administration appointee Rashad Hussain, the U.S. Special Envoy to the OIC. The evening before Madani’s 17 September speech, the program featured his keynote address for the AIC’s 2nd Annual Convocation Ceremony.

Prior to Madani becoming the OIC’s 10th Secretary General in January 2014, the OIC held The First International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media in September 2013 in Geneva, Switzerland to press for the criminalization of freedom of expression by individuals speaking about Islam in ways deemed ‘offensive’ and to control media content. When Iranian President Hassan Rouhani met with Madani, he, too, reiterated the OIC’s ‘Islamophobia’ conference theme as shown in his 5 February 2014 message to Twitter followers:

handshake

The OIC is an inter-governmental organization of 56 Islamic states (plus the Palestinian Authority) that represents the head of state leadership of the Muslim world and takes and implements decisions on behalf of the ummah. One of the OIC’s top agenda items is the Istanbul Process, its vehicle for pursuing insinuation of Islamic Law on slander into the U.S. and other Western legal codes. The Obama administration, including the Department of State, has eagerly promoted the Istanbul Process, as when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her speech to OIC on 15 September 2011. A year later, in his annual address to the United Nations on 25 September 2012 in New York City, President Obama left no doubts about his own position on the Islamic law on slander, when he told the UN General Assembly that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

As Madani warned his Chicago audience about speaking against Islam, he was only reminding them of the OIC’s 10 year strategic plan, established in 2005 in part to advocate for an anti-blasphemy law regarding Islam. About freedom of expression, Madani made clear that, for Muslims, Islam is off-limits, saying that it “should not reach religious tales…we think freedom of expression ends there.” Attempting to draw an analogy about the discussion of sensitive subjects in American society and “insulting” or “contextualizing” a religious faith such as Islam, Madani continued “You have to give the same privilege and rights to others. There are certain limits to which the freedom of speech can reach where social values of one society should be considered as human values” and that insisting on free speech about such things is a “breach of human rights.” Although left unspoken by Madani, his reference to “human rights” clearly was meant to evoke for his Muslim audience specifically and only those rights permitted under shariah (Islamic Law).

Of course, the OIC authored the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which states, “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah,” and “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

The OIC’s Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which explicitly rejects the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nevertheless was presented to and accepted by the UN General Assembly in 1993. Rather, as stated in the OIC’s charter, its member Muslim states intend “to be guided by the noble Islamic values of unity and fraternity, and affirming the essentiality of promoting and consolidating the unity and solidarity among the Member States in securing their common interests at the international arena.” 

Turning next to the recent Israeli action in Gaza, Madani addressed the audience of around ninety people at the Chicago event, attacking Israel’s inherent right to protect itself from terrorism and an existential threat. Less than two months before the Madani event, Chicago witnessed vicious antisemitic demonstrations led by HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood supporters. Madani claimed that “President Abbas has compromised on everything he can compromise on. And all he is asking now is for a peace negotiation to start with defining what borders the Israelis want for their country.” Madani displayed frustration that the Israeli-Palestinian issue “will not find a fair hearing within the political process” in this country. This issue, as well, is firmly-grounded in the OIC’s charter, which states its objective“….to establish a sovereign state for the Palestinian people with Al-Quds Al-Sharif [Jerusalem] as its capital, and to safeguard its historic and Islamic character, and the holy places therein….”

The OIC Secretary General also decried what he termed “extreme pressure from the American foreign policy establishment” placed on the sixteen member countries of the United Nations Human Rights Council to not form a special session led by the OIC to investigate purported Israeli war crimes. Agitated by this matter he concluded, “The only country that voted against that was the United States of America.” In July 2014, Madani had Tweeted his disapproval of the American position on Twitter.

tweet (1)

While both the OIC and Secretary General Madani declare that Boko Haram and the Islamic State “…have no relationship with Islam,” the reality is that non-Muslims in Iraq and Syria are being slaughtered by Muslims who declare their authority derives from Islamic doctrine. The Islamic State is committed to the complete subjugation or annihilation of the Christian and other former ethnic majority people of the Middle East and eradication of their ancient historical roots in the region. Islamic State jihadis systematically are marking Christian homes with the Arabic letter “N”, which is shorthand for “Nasrani,” meaning Nazarene or Christian. The infamous triple choice of Islam – convert, pay the jizya, or die – derives directly from Qur’anic verse 9:29, and intends ultimately to make the Middle East birthplace of Christianity “Christian-rein” as, with the exception of a vibrant Israel, it virtually already is for Jews. The savage Qur’anic punishments laid out in verse 5:32-33 await all those who refuse to be dhimmis.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, the home country of OIC Secretary General Madani, is ranked as one of the top ten countries in the world regarding the most extreme persecution of Christians. The government of Saudi Arabia has banned all churches, synagogues, and temples. Not only does the government deny recognition or protection of any religion other than Sunni Islam, it prohibits the open practice of any other religion. Apostasy is punishable by death, as per shariah.

This is the ideology and world view welcomed with open doors by American Islamic College (AIC), the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and the American citizens who attended their event.

Reading Is Islamophobic

Answering Muslims, By David Wood:

Some people complain about Islam because of the endless terrorist attacks they read about every day. Others complain about Islam because they read the Qur’an and Hadith and find incredibly violent teachings. No matter how you look at it, reading is a source of Islamophobia. Hence, in order to combat Islamophobia, reading must be eliminated. Join my campaign against literacy.

 

Guardian Copy Editor Brags About Joining Islamist Censorship Campaign

MTV Partners With CAIR Despite Islamist Agenda

CAIR MTVBY RYAN MAURO:

MTV is including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity with a history of radicalism, in its“world-class coalition of expert partners” for a campaign to combat discrimination and inequality. CAIR has a history of tarring its opponents by calling them “anti-Muslim” or “Islamophobes.”

The multi-year “Look Different” campaign will use celebrity activism, television shows and social media to influence the over 500 million households that MTV is available in. While well-intentioned, MTV unfortunately chose to include CAIR, an organization with an extremist history that tars every opponent as an anti-Muslim bigot.

The Justice Department designated CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history. The government listed CAIR as an entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, specifically its secret Palestine Committee; a body set up to covertly support the Hamas terrorist group.

The designation was upheld by a federal judge in 2009 because of “ample” evidence to show that CAIR is part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s pro-Hamas network in America. After the designation, the FBI formally ended its use of CAIR as an outreach partner “until we can resolve whether there continues to be a relationship between CAIR or its executives with Hamas.”

In 2004, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said in an interview with Al-Jazeera that CAIR does not consider Hamas and Hezbollah to be terrorist organizations. He said, “We do not and will not condemn any liberation movement inside Palestine or Lebanon.”

In 2007, federal prosecutors said in a court filing: “From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists … the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.”

You can read the Clarion Project’s fully-documented profile of CAIRhere.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas have a history of extremism and anti-Semitism; the exact type of sentiment that MTV’s project seeks to counter. Yet, MTV is embracing an organization with confirmed links to these groups. CAIR’s fundraising banquets regularly feature radical speakers that promote violence and anti-American and anti-Semitic propaganda and conspiracy theories.

Read more at Clarion Project

Steven Emerson: The effort to censor our NYT ad by pro-Islamist forces makes our point for us

UC Berkeley “Islamophobia” Conference: Pseudo-Scholarship at Taxpayer Expense

islam (1)by :

At taxpayer expense, one of the most prominent universities in America, UC Berkeley, recently hosted an Islamic propaganda-fest promoting Sharia Law and ways to use the educational sphere to obstruct national security by blaming “Islamophobia” and “white racism.” Participants hailed their “research” as the cause of the cancellation of the NYPD’s counterterrorism intelligence program and called for “Islamophobia Studies” to be a college major worldwide.

A peculiar theme was repeatedly advanced throughout the three-day Fifth Annual Conference on Islamophobia, held at UC Berkeley’s prestigious Boalt Law School in Berkeley, California April 17-19. Almost all presenters who spoke about the 34 or more “academic” papers that were discussed continually asserted that white racism and colonialism were the causes of “Islamophobia” throughout America and Europe. In their view, this “Islamophobia” is driven by the media, while racism against people of color is the main cause overall behind the (supposed) persecution of Muslims. Fear of terrorism was of no legitimate concern.

Discussions also centered on discrimination against women and gays, a practice deemed not to be a widespread problem in Islamic practices, but the result of “Islamophobia.”

Hatem Bazian was the main organizer of the event. A Senior Lecturer in the Near Eastern and Ethnic Studies at UC Berkeley, Bazian was an adjunct Professor of Islamic Law at Boalt Law School from 2002-2007. As an undergrad, Bazian was a student leader among the General Union of Palestinian Students at San Francisco State, where he ultimately earned an M.A. in International Relations. He then went through UC Berkeley’s PhD program while being a Palestinian activist on that campus with the Students for Justice in Palestine. He is one of the founders of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, the nation’s first “Islamic college” that is graduating its first class this month. Bazian was a co-founder of American Muslims for Palestine that has been featured in the news as a Hamas front.

Bazian kicked off the conference with an introduction that discussed Islamophobia as an irrational fear of Islam and a major issue for Muslims worldwide. He cast much of the blame for this (supposed) situation on Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project. Bazian stated that the conference would deal with deciphering the causes and activities of latent and manifested Islamophobia and that similar conferences were already in the works to take place in Paris, France and Salzberg, Austria next year to reach European audiences. He also discussed a similar conference to take place in Turkey because, as he explained, “Islamophobia takes place in the Middle East and Muslim countries also.” He concluded by saying that he hoped to see “Islamophobia” as a major studies course in universities and colleges across America and the entire world.

As the conference ensued, the speakers blamed the news media for Islamophobia and complained of so-called “experts” on Islam who allegedly “had no knowledge” and were supposedly inflaming public opinion against Muslims. These individuals included Pamela Geller, Ann Coulter and Robert Spencer, who, like Steve Emerson, were all accused of making “false accusations” against Muslims. Photos were displayed of the controversial bus ads placed by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer’s American Freedom Defense Initiative condemning jihad in Boston, with examples of how the organizers had managed to get the bus companies to change the wording on the ads to make them less “anti-Islamic.”

At no time during the conference was there a condemnation of terrorism or any other security threat to the United States, despite an agreement by all that 9/11 was a watershed moment for Muslims, particularly in America. Israel also was not mentioned, save for once when the word “occupation” was used. Any type of national security that scrutinized Muslims was deemed “Islamophobic,” as if actual terrorism does not exist and has never been carried out by Muslims — who are, according to the conference’s main theme, only falsely profiled or accused and are, therefore, victims.

Read more at Front Page

Lee Kaplan is an investigative journalist and head of the non-profit DAFKA.org website and its StoptheISM.com subsidiary. He is a contributing writer at Frontpagemag.com and a regular columnist at the educational watchdog Israelcampus.com and the IsraelNationalNews.com. He is a Fellow with the American Center for Democracy and exposes frequently indoctrination on college campuses and activities of the International Solidarity Movement. He can be reached at leekaplan@stoptheism.com

CAIR, Allies Campaign to Cleanse Truth From 9/11 Museum

911 memorial ceremony

One of the chief reasons that CAIR is waging war against words like “jihad” and “Islamist” is because the group doesn’t want its ideology to be discussed and it certainly doesn’t want Americans to know that it and Al-Qaeda share the same overall Islamist ideology. Their disagreements are only about target selection, rhetoric and tactics.

By Ryan Mauro:

The interfaith allies of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) think the American people can’t handle the truth about the jihadist motivation behind 9/11. They condescendingly infer that Americans are so inclined towards anti-Muslim bigotry that the terms “Islamist” and “jihad” must not be heard at the 9/11 Museum.

The 9/11 Museum, opening May 21, includes a seven-minute video titled The Rise of Al-Qaeda hosted by veteran news anchor Brian Williams. The tape refers to the Al-Qaeda terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks as “Islamists” who believed they were pursuing a jihad against the United States. These are two terms that American Islamists have tried to delete from the American lexicon or at least whitewash them to the point they become meaningless.

CAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and five other Arab groups have issued a joint statement demanding the removal of the video. Both have Muslim Brotherhood origins and a history of pro-Islamist activism. They are joined by the Interfaith Center of New York and New York Disaster Interfaith Services who have their own separatejoint statement.

Islamists like CAIR draw other Muslims and non-Muslims to their side with the argument that these terms promote “Islamophobia,” as if Americans are so uneducated and prejudiced that they’ll automatically assume that all Muslims are Al-Qaeda sympathizers. Even if that were true, the 9/11 Museum goes to great lengths to debunk anti-Muslim stereotypes.

The museum spokesman said there are two exhibits that clearly show that Al-Qaeda is a “far fringe of Islam.” The New York Timesreports that the Museum has photos of Muslims mourning after the attacks, stories about Muslims who died in the attacks and testimony from Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim congressman in U.S. history.

The museum’s executives had Princeton University Professor Bernard Haykel approve the script before making it a part of the site. He stands by the decision to approve the film because there is simply no honest way to explain the motivations of Al-Qaeda without mentioning jihad.

“The critics who are going to say, ‘Let’s not talk about it as an Islamic or Islamist movement,’ could end up not telling the story at all, or diluting it so much that you wonder where Al-Qaeda comes from,” he told the Times.

He’s right. CAIR and its allies are essentially saying that Americans can’t handle the truth, so they shouldn’t know it.

Read more at Clarion Project

CAIR’s Jihad against Honor Diaries

20120418_CAIR_FSMby ANDREW C. MCCARTHY:

Honor Diaries is an important film that explores the brutality and systematic inequality faced by women in Muslim-majority societies. It features both believing Muslim women, like Dr. Qanta Ahmed (whose compelling essay about the film was published here at National Review Online yesterday), and former Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the renowned author and human-rights activist.

The purpose of Honor Diaries is to empower women by shining a light on the hardships they endure – including “honor” killings (i.e., murders over the perception of having brought shame to the family by violating Islamic norms), beatings, genital mutilation, forced marriage – particularly of young girls – and restrictions on movement, education, and economic opportunity. The film highlights authentic Muslim moderates struggling against the dead-end of Islamic supremacism.

So naturally, the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) does not want you to see it.

At Fox News, Megyn Kelly has been covering the film anyway, despite CAIR’s howling. The segments that aired on Monday and Tuesday are available on Megyn’s website, here and here.

CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood creation, conceived as the primo American public-relations firm for Islamic supremacists, particularly Hamas – a task CAIR pulls off by masquerading as a “civil rights” organization.

Hamas, as I recounted in The Grand Jihad, is a formally designated terrorist organization under federal law. It is also the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. In the early Nineties, the Brotherhood established a “Palestine Committee” to promote Hamas in the United States, an agenda topped by fundraising and efforts to derail the 1993 Oslo accords – the futile, Clinton administration-brokered attempt to forge an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. CAIR’s founders, Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmed, attended a three-day summit in support of Hamas in Philadelphia in 1993, much of which was wiretapped by the FBI. CAIR was established shortly afterwards. By summer 1994, the Palestine Committee was listing CAIR in internal memoranda as one of its “working organizations.”

We’ve discussed CAIR here many times, including in my 2009 column about the FBI’s long-overdue severing of “outreach” ties with the organization. It is infuriating that the Feebs and the wider government thought it was worth canoodling with CAIR in the first place, but the Bureau officially ended the affair after the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial, in which several Hamas operatives were convicted. CAIR, though unindicted, was shown by the Justice Department to be a co-conspirator. In sum, prosecutors established that the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) was the primary Hamas fundraising arm in the United States. Like CAIR, HLF was identified by the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee as one of its “working organizations.” As terrorism researcher Steve Emerson has shown, CAIR got $5,000 in seed money at its inception from HLF, and thereafter helped raise money for HLF. The federal government shut HLF down in 2001 because of its promotion of terrorism.

Although Honor Diaries has been widely acclaimed and screened internationally, CAIR has been agitating against it. As reliably happens when CAIR plays its tired “Islamophobia” card, universities across the nation cower – especially universities with active Muslim Students Association chapters. (As we’ve observed before, the MSA is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States.) Starting with the University of Michigan at Dearborn, several schools have now decided not to screen the film after all.

Why it is “Islamophobic” to condemn violence and abuse against Muslim women is not entirely clear to me. It is, however, clear to Linda Sarsour, a “community organizer” and “immigrants’ rights activist” who is celebrated on President Obama’s website, WhiteHouse.gov, as a “Champion of Change.” As reported on The Kelly File, this particular “champion” reacted to Honor Diaries by tweeting:

How many times do we have to tell White women that we do not need to be saved by them? Is there code language I need to use to get thru?

Thoughts like Ms. Sarsour’s make for depressing reading, but clearly she is referring to some of the filmmakers, who happen to be white women (the others include white men and a black woman, Ms. Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born executive producer who was raised as a Muslim). The film has also been promoted by yet another highly accomplished woman, Brooke Goldstein, the human-rights attorney and filmmaker who directsThe Lawfare Project; and by the Clarion Project, a New York-based organization that promotes moderate Islam and publicly challenges “extremist” Islam.

The community organizers at CAIR have obviously read a bit farther along in Rules for Radicals than Ms. Sarsour. Rather than racist tweets, they couch their character assassination of the film’s backers in the poll-tested sensitivities of everyday Americans, pretending to endorse the film’s message while telling you not to watch it. They issued a statement on Monday that Megyn Kelly aired:

American Muslims join people of conscience of all faiths in condemning female genital mutilation, forced marriages, ‘honor killings,’ and any other form of domestic violence or gender inequality as violations of Islamic beliefs. If anyone mistreats women, they should not seek refuge in Islam. The real concern in this case is that the producers of the film, who have a track record of promoting anti-Muslim bigotry, are hijacking a legitimate issue to push their hate-filled agenda.

Right. Women are being brutalized but our “real concern” should be the “track record” of some film producers. Beyond CAIR’s say-so that it is “hate-filled,” this purportedly dark track record is not described. But, after all, who would know more about what counts as “hate-filled” than a PR flack for a terrorist organization whose charter vows to annihilate Israel by violent jihad?

On Tuesday night, CAIR’s Chicago branch dispatched Agnieszka Karoluk, one of its “senior communications coordinators,” to Fox in order to regurgitate CAIR’s statement. Questioned by Megyn Kelly, Ms. Karoluk gave a dizzying explanation: CAIR, we’re told, agrees that Honor Diaries raises vital issues, opposes the abuse of women just like the film does, and is not really happy that colleges are canceling screenings (even though CAIR put out a smiley-face tweet when the first cancellation was announced). But CAIR is “disgusted” by the Clarion Project because it is – all together now – “Islamophobic.” Ms. Karoluk declined to say what makes it so (of course, to get into that would bring attention to episodes of Islamic extremism Clarion has exposed). So because Clarion likes the film, you shouldn’t watch it even though its content is accurate and significant – got it? Confronted by Brooke Goldstein about CAIR’s own record, Ms. Karoluk predictably replied, “I’m not here to talk about CAIR, I’m here to talk about the film” . . . and then continued to avoid talking about the film.

It is no doubt true, as CAIR’s statement asserts, that American Muslims substantially join the rest of us in condemning the abuse of women. CAIR, however, is in no position to speak for American Muslims – and in fact speaks for very few of them. Even if one were inclined to accept CAIR’s statements at face value, Honor Diaries is about the abuse of Muslim women; it is not about the filmmakers. If CAIR truly condemned these misogynistic practices it would be encouraging people to see the film. Instead, as Dr. Ahmed told Megyn, “They claim to be defending the vulnerable whereas they’re actually silencing exposure about the vulnerable.”

But there is no reason to take CAIR’s statements at face value. Under the old adage that actions speak louder than words, the inescapable fact is that CAIR does not condemn the horrific abuse of women in Muslim-majority countries. It is feigning condemnation in hopes of rendering people more receptive to CAIR’s actual message, which is: Avoid Honor Diaries because anyone who exposes atrocities committed by Muslims is unworthy of consideration, no matter how valid the exposition.

And I can prove it.

CAIR has a very close relationship with another Muslim Brotherhood creation, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) – an Islamic-supremacist think-tank we’ve also discussed in these pages (see, e.g., here). As Steve Emerson points out, disclosure forms IIIT filed with the IRS show thousands of dollars in contributions to CAIR. IIIT was also a major financial backer of Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami al-Arian, whom CAIR continued to champion even after his guilty plea to a terrorism charge.

As I’ve previously recounted, IIIT is one of the influential Islamic academic outfits that have endorsed Reliance of the Traveller, the English translation of the classic sharia manual, `Umdat al-Salik. Indeed, the endorsement, written by IIIT’s then-president, Taha Jabir al-`Alwani, is included in the introduction section of the published manual. Dr. Alwani, a revered figure in Muslim Brotherhood circles, highly recommended Reliance as both a “textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English-speakers” and a legal reference for sharia scholars.

Here are just some of the things Reliance teaches about the treatment of women under Islamic law (with supporting citations to sections of the manual):

Read more: Family Security Matters