CAIR’s Christ: Muslim-Christian Common Denominator or (Deadly) Divider

By Andrew E. Harrod:

“We have more in common than we think,” concludes Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper with respect to Christian and Muslim understandings of Jesus in a December 23, 2013, USA Today editorial.  Yet this reprint there and elsewhere of an older Christmas article from a Hamas-offshoot and unindicted terrorist coconspirator organization deceptively glosses over deep, sometimes dangerous (for Christians) theological differences.

CAIR’s Hooper

CAIR’s Hooper

The Caucasian Muslim convert (formerly named Doug) and supporter of American Islamic governanceHooper argues that, along with Christians, “Muslims also love and revere Jesus as one of God’s greatest messengers to mankind.”  Hooper notes that the Quran speaks of Jesus “held in honor in this world and the Hereafter” (3:45) and as a “sign for the whole world” (21:91).  In the Quran Jesus is strengthened by the “holy spirit” (2:87, capitalized by Hooper, but not by various Quran translations) and born of a Mary who wonders how she can have a son as a virgin (3:47).

Hooper’s other Islamic Jesus references, though, become more problematical for Christians.  He cites Quran 57:27 to the effect that Jesus received the Gospel and His followers “compassion and mercy.”  Hooper, however, fails to mention that this verse calls “monasticism” something “invented” by Christians and yet not implemented properly by often “defiantly disobedient.”

Hooper also notes how Jesus in Quran 5:110 heals the blind and lepers.  Unmentioned by Hooper, another miracle attributed to Jesus by Quran 5:110 (and the similar verse 3:49) is the turning of clay into a bird.  As religions scholar Kate Zebiri wrote in an article (PDF copyhere), this is the only Jesus miracle in the Quran but not the Bible, although this miracle appears in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.  This similarity with an apocryphal writing rejected by Christians as inaccurate calls into question the accuracy and origins of the Quran, held by Muslims to be God’s revelation.  Likewise Quran 19:23-25 present Mary birthing Jesus under a palm tree, not in a manger, an account traced by various scholars to the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition

 

The Muslims with No Name: Islamists Cover Up Their Existence in the Media

20130407_AP_SHSSSBy ANDREW E. HARROD, SAM NUNBERG:

As reported by U.S. News & World Report on April 4, 2013, the Associated Press (AP) has revised its definition of “Islamist” in the latest edition of the AP stylebook after the AP announced that it would likewise no longer approve of “illegal immigrant.”  This move, advocated precisely by a troubling Muslim group justifiably called Islamist in the past, shows once again how difficult it is for modern free societies even to identify their Islamist foes in the face of politically correct pressures.

Added to the AP stylebook in 2012, Islamist initially had the following entry: “Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam.  Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”  The updated entry reads:

An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.  Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.

Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations:  al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc.  Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), praised “this revision” as a “step in the right direction” that “will result in fewer negative generalizations in coverage of issues related to Islam and Muslims.”  Hooper considered the “key issue with the term ‘Islamist'” to be “not its continued use,” but rather “its use almost exclusively as an ill-defined pejorative.”

Hooper had previously recommended on January 3, 2013, that the media “[d]rop the term ‘Islamist,'” which had “become shorthand for ‘Muslims we don’t like.'”  This term’s “almost exclusively pejorative context” has an “even more negative slant” when “often coupled with the term ‘extremist.'”  By analogy, Hooper rejected any hypothetical media references to the “‘Judaist government of Israel,’ the ‘Christianist leader Rick Santorum’ or ‘Hinduist Indian politician Narendra Modi'” when describing “those who would similarly seek governments ‘in accord with the laws’ of their respective faiths.”

“Many Muslims,” Hooper stated, who wish to serve the public good are influenced by the principles of their faith.  Islam teaches Muslims to work for the welfare of humanity and to be honest and just.  If this inspiration came from the Bible, such a person might well be called a Good Samaritan.  But when the source is the Quran, the person is an “Islamist.”

The “frequent linkage of the term ‘Islamist'” to various human rights violations was “strongly promoted by Islamophobic groups.”  This appeared to Hooper as attempts “to launch rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims, without the public censure that would normally accompany such bigoted attacks on any other faith.”  “Islam-bashers,” Hooper elaborated, “routinely use the term to disingenuously claim they only hate ‘political’ Islam, not the faith itself,” yet “fail to explain how a practicing Muslim can be active in the political arena without attracting the label ‘Islamist.'”

If retained at all by “media professionals,” Hooper recommended that “Islamist” appear only when a “group applies the term to itself,” analogous to the AP’s treatment of “fundamentalist.”  Absent such elimination or modification, “Islamist” entailed a “political and religious value judgment” that “is hardly fair or balanced.”

Hooper might well reject the “Islamist” label, for this term has in the past denounced CAIR in, for example, the Investigative Report on Terrorism (IPT)’s exhaustive 118-page report on CAIR.  IPT documents how CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful 2008 prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development for financing Hamas terrorists, has its origins in American entities of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Hamas.  Accordingly, CAIR has an extensive history of apologizing for militant jihad and repressive sharia practices as well as CAIR functionary convictions for supporting Islamic terrorism.  Hooper himself has in the past stated that he would like to see the United States government become “Islamic” and implement sharia.
Read more: Family Security Matters

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 admitted to the Virginia State Bar.  He has published various pieces concerning an Islamic supremacist agenda at the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project, American Thinker, and Faith Freedom International.

 

CAIR’s Thought Police: At It Again

img_01831-450x300

 Ibrahim Hooper

By Deborah Weiss

The thought police over at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are urging journalists to delete the word “Islamist” from their lexicon.  Though CAIR claims that the word stems out of bigotry, CAIR’s real agenda is to protect Islam — and Islamists — from so-called “defamation.”

The Associated Press Style Book is a guide for journalists which lays out rules for spelling, punctuation, and other guidelines.  In its most recent edition, it added the word “Islamist,” which it defines as: “Islamist: supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam.  Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”  Generally, the word “Islamist” is used to distinguish those who want to practice Islam as a spiritual faith, as opposed to those who interpret it and apply it as a political ideology.  Those in the latter category desire the merging of mosque and state.

On January 3, 2012, Ibrahim Hooper, national spokesperson for CAIR, published a column suggesting that in the New Year journalists should refrain from using the word “Islamist.”

He complains that news reports unfairly focus on Islamists and notes that there are no news reports of “Christianist,” “Hinduist,” or “Judaist” political leaders.  He further insists that the word “Islamist” is used almost always “pejoratively” by “Islamophobic groups and individuals” who link the word to terrorism, persecution of religious minorities, and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.  Hooper whines that such “bigoted attacks” unfairly target Islam because they are not equally hurled at other faiths.

Hooper goes on to claim that often the word “Islamist” is used by “Islam-bashers” who “disingenuously” claim to hate political Islam, though deep in their hearts they hate all Islam.  As proof of his assertion, he accuses the alleged Islamophobes of failing to explain how a practicing Muslim can be politically active without attracting the label “Islamist.”  After all, he writes, Muslims who wish to serve the “public good” and are merely “influenced” by their faith are slapped with the label “Islamist.”  He professes that they just want to work for the “welfare of humanity and to be honest and just,” and if that same inspiration had eminated from the Bible instead of the Quran, they’d be deemed “good Samaritans.”

However, Hooper allows one exception for when use of the word “Islamist” is acceptable, and that is when it is used by Islamists themselves.

And therein lies the rub.  It’s not really the word to which Hooper is objecting.  It is the negative connotation which serves to “defame Islam.”  In the eyes of CAIR and other Islamist organizations, anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims constitutes “defamation,” even if it’s true. This is a definition at odds with that in the American legal system which requires defamation to consist of a false statement of fact.

So the real agenda of CAIR and its ilk is not to stop “bigotry” against Islam or Muslims, but to whitewash and obfuscate the truth and propagate a disinformation campaign about, yes, Islamist terrorism, Islamist persecution of religious minorities and Islamist human rights violations, all of which are done in furtherance of the ultimate goal of Islamist Supremacy.

Read more at Front Page