A Lesson on Free Speech and Sharia in Knoxville

lk-450x137by Andrew Harrod:

A recent legal victory by Freedom X upheld the right of private citizens to discuss openly sharia law at a Knoxville, Tennessee, high school. “This is a victory for free speech,” Freedom X’s President William J. Becker rightly explained, in yet another instructive example of Islamists seeking to subvert the United States Constitution’s First Amendment.

A local Knoxville chapter of ACT! for America began the case by arranging an April 24 evening town hall at Farragut High School (FHS). The event featured Dr. Bill French, Center for the Study of Political Islam founder under the pen name Warner, and Matt Bonner, regional director of the Crescent Project, a Christian evangelization ministry for Muslims. They intended to address the encroachment in America of sharia, vaguely described in one online report as “Islamic laws governing worship and lifestyle.” Becker correctly clarifies that “Sharia is incompatible with our constitutional and legal protections” in numerous ways.

Both local and national Muslims groups, however, greeted the event with harsh opposition. Abdel Rahman Murphy, a Muslim chaplain at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, emailed then FHS principal Mike F. Reynolds on April 8 requesting the event’s cancellation. The town hall flyer had “kind of an aggressive tone,” Murphy argued to reporters. “Feel free hosting” the event “anywhere else by renting out a banquet hall,” Murphy added, “but to host it at a public place…is not comfortable for the rest of us.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a radical faux civil rights group and an unindicted terrorism financing coconspirator, also objected. An April 11 CAIR news release publicized a letter by CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper to FHS the previous day that “vilifies…French, Bonner and ACT! for America” with a “false attribution” of “anti-Muslim hate” refuted by Becker’s complaint. “We support the First Amendment right to free speech—even…hate speech used by these speakers,” Hooper argued. The “need for a safe and inclusive learning environment,” though, makes a “school…not the proper setting.”

Principal Reynolds’ April 10 letter to Knox County Schools Superintendent James P. McIntyre, Jr. shared Hooper’s sentiments. “Groups promoting hate rather than tolerance” would have the event “serve as a public forum for harassment and bullying practices that contradict the open-minded, academic discussion we seek to…foster at” FHS, Murphy wrote. The event would generate “little positive press or educational benefit,” yet “polarize our community” when “deemed ours by association.” Concerns of “potential backlash” and “future security threats” from “retaliation of opposing groups” existed. These “expressed concerns…about…disruption” from an event unsuitable for “a safe, healthy and comfortable learning environment” caused McIntyre to rescind ACT!’s invitation in an April 11 letter to its Knoxville chapter leaders.

A Knoxville school official was “happy to announce” ACT!’s uninviting. Hooper boasted of the school’s decision, arguing that “this event in a public school would send an implicit message of endorsement for the bigoted views of the speakers.” Knoxville schools must “remain a safe place for all students,” concurred Remziya Suleyman from the Tennessee-based Muslim organization, American Center for Outreach.

The Knoxville ACT! chapter’s president John Peach held the event in a church, not seeking other public venues for fear of another cancellation. “Sharia is not well-understood and we wanted to inform the public” as “concerned Americans,” Peach said. An “American…should” not “be afraid to speak out on public matters in a public forum.”

Peach noted that Muslim groups such as the Saudi-backed Muslim Students Association, meanwhile, could openly operate unopposed at the University of Tennessee Knoxville campus. “If it’s right for Muslims to host events in tax-funded public facilities, then what is wrong with a group of citizens wanting the same,” he asked. “This is a great example of what Sharia Law is doing to America.”

Read more at Frontpage

‘Freedom X’ Takes on CAIR

fg-450x314by Arnold Ahlert:

A lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee by Freedom X, a nonprofit law firm that specializes in First Amendment issues. ACT! for America Knoxville vs. Knox County Schools alleges that Knox County School officials and Superintendent Jim McIntyre canceled an April after-hours presentation at Farragut High School that was to center around Sharia Law and its increasing acceptance in the United States due to complaints from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). “Public officials, and that includes public school officials, violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment whenever they censor speech merely because it offends someone,” said William J. Becker, Jr., Freedom X’s president and general counsel. “Unfortunately, we are seeing this trend grow as Muslim activists play the victim card.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of John Peach, director of the Knoxville chapter of ACT! for America, a group founded by Lebanese immigrant Brigitte Gabriel. Act! for America describes itself as a “non-partisan, non-sectarian organization whose mission is to give Americans concerned about national security and terrorism a powerful, organized, informed and mobilized voice.”

Apparently giving Americans that voice doesn’t sit well with CAIR. Prior to the event, CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper sent a letter to Farragut High School Principal Michael Reynolds insisting that the scheduled speakers— Dr. Bill French, aka Bill Warner, an expert on Islam and the Koran, and Matt Bonner, Knoxville chapter director of the Crescent Project, a Christian group that engages in Muslim evangelization—were “bigots.” Hooper further claimed that the event itself

will be viewed as having the endorsement of school officials and has the potential to promote bullying and to create a hostile learning environment for Muslim students. It may also serve to create a negative impression of Islam and Muslims in the minds of students of all faiths.

Hooper then claimed he supported the First Amendment right to free speech,

even the kind of hate speech used by these speakers—but believe, because of the need for a safe and inclusive learning environment, that a school is not the proper setting for such an event. I therefore respectfully request that you review district policies to determine whether you (sic) high school is an appropriate venue for a potentially hate-filled program.

After receiving Hooper’s letter, a school official told CAIR that “Farragut High School does not support this event, nor do we share the presenters’ views.” Soon after, the invitation was rescinded.

Knox County Superintendent Jim McIntyre explained the decision. “The primary purpose of our school facilities is to provide a safe, healthy and comfortable learning environment for our students,“ he said in a statement. “When other uses of the facility begin to impinge on or interfere with the administration’s ability to provide a suitable education atmosphere, it is necessary for us to reconsider that use.”

Act! For America noted the hypocrisy:

Why is it that Muslims engage in teaching about how good Islam is for Tennessee at the Cedar Bluff Library – a public building – but feel ‘uncomfortable’ when ACT! For America plans an event to show the opposite viewpoint at a public building?

That CAIR has any political traction whatsoever is a testament to what Freedom X describes as “creeping Sharia.” In a June 2009 ruling arising from the 2008 trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), during which five HLF official were convicted of 108 counts of abetting terrorist organizations, Judge Jorge Solis revealed that CAIR had ties to Hamas. “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas,” it stated. Solis agreed with CAIR that his ruling should have remained sealed based on Fifth Amendment protections, but he refused to remove references to CAIR from the trial record. “CAIR’s status as a co-conspirator is a matter of public record,” he explained.

In an unfortunate twist in the story, the Internet media group PRWeb, an organization that boasts of having a network of 30,000 journalists and the ability to get stories featured on “major local and national news sites,” has attempted to suppress this information about CAIR. When Becker sought to get the story of Freedom X’s lawsuit disseminated to a wider audience, and included the published references of CAIR’s ties to Hamas in his press release, PRWeb refused to run it.

Read more at Front Page

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

9/11 Museum Refuses to Censor Al-Qaeda Film

sr-2-450x274by Deborah Weiss:

Amidst a barrage of controversy and criticism, the 9/11 museum officials stand firm in their decision to air a documentary on Al-Qaeda without censorship of Islam-related language.

The 911 Museum will open to the public on May 21, 2014, with a preview period for 9/11 families and survivors from May 15, 2014 to May 20, 2014.

Included is a 7-minute documentary titled, “[T]he Rise of Al-Qaeda.” It shows footage of Al-Qaeda’s journey over the prior several years on the way to 9/11, from its training camps to a series of terrorist attacks.  The film will be adjacent to a room displaying photos of the 9/11 hijackers.

The film portrays the 9/11 hijackers as “Islamists” who viewed their mission as a “deadly jihad.” After all, in the words of the hijackers: “[M]any thanks to Allah for his kind gesture and choosing us to perform the act of jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims.”  So, it was the hijackers themselves that believed they were on a jihadi mission for the cause of Islam.

The film has been thoroughly vetted and its accuracy is not in dispute.  But an advisory panel of interfaith clergy who previewed the film is complaining about the use of the words “Islamist” and “jihad,” insisting that the jihadists should be shown in a greater “context” that portrays most Muslims as peaceful.

Reverend Chloe Breyer (Justice Breyer’s daughter), who preaches at Saint Philips Church in Harlem, wants the video to show Islam as a peace-loving religion where only a few outliers like the 9/11 hijackers are violent.  She believes that the word “jihad” is an Islamic struggle to do good and that the film in its current form may justify bigotry or violence unless accompanied by a disclaimer.

Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the only Imam on the advisory panel, made a splash when he quit the panel in response to the film, stating that “unsophisticated visitors who don’t understand the difference between Al-Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading toward antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”  He went on to say that “the screening of the film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum.”

Akbar Ahmed, Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, protested that most museum visitors will assume that the language refers to all Muslims. He argues that one shouldn’t associate the terrorists with their religion because doing so implicates 1.5 billion Muslims by association.

John Esposito, an apologist for Islam at the Saudi-funded Prince Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, generally prefers the phrase “Muslim terrorism” to “Islamic terrorism” in order to dissociate the motivating ideology from the terrorist behavior, and instead give the impression that the terrorist conduct is just coincidently committed by Muslims.

Others want the museum to go out of its way to show Muslims mourning over the 9/11 attacks to “balance out” images of Islam.  Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson for CAIR, a group which holds itself out as a Muslim civil rights organization but which in reality has many terrorist ties of its own, insisted that the film will reinforce “stereotypes” of Muslims as terrorists.  He emphasized: “it’s very important how Islam is portrayed.”

But the film is not about Islam.  The purpose of the museum is to educate the public on the events of 9/11, including who committed it and what their motivation was.  The focus should be on the atrocity that murdered almost 3000 people in cold blood, not a PC version of feel-good Islam.

Joseph Daniels, the museum’s Executive Director, said that museum officials “stand by the scholarship that underlies the creation of this video.”  NBC News Anchor, Brian Williams, who narrates the film explained, “[w]e have a heavy responsibility to be true to the facts, to be objective.”  He asserted that the film in no way smears a whole religion, but instead talks about Al-Qaeda, a terrorist group.  And, the film clearly acknowledges that Muslims were among the 9/11 victims, mourners, and recovery workers.

So the issue is how the terrorists are characterized and whether the public can discern the difference between Al-Qaeda and those who identify themselves as Muslim but are peaceful and law-abiding.

First, it is a fact that Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam motivated the 9/11 attacks.  To say that acknowledging Al-Qaeda’s motivational ideology indicts 1.5 billion Muslims is to say that all 1.5 billion Muslims agree with Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam.  If they do, they should be indicted. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be offended because the statements don’t apply to them.

Second, it’s unlikely that the Imam on the advisory panel speaks for all local and foreign Muslims, whom he claims to know will all be offended.  If all Muslims should be painted with this broad brush, then the offense is deserved.  If they are not a monolith, they shouldn’t be offended. On the contrary, they should be insulted that some unknown Imam thinks they can’t handle the truth.

Third, to claim that 9/11 or any other Islamic terrorist attack was just terrorism that incidentally was committed by Muslims is just a lie.  It is the terrorists, not the reporters, who assert that they are motivated by their faith.  Those who disagree with the terrorists’ interpretation of their faith should take it up with the terrorists, not those observing and reporting the facts.  The same goes for terrorists who are members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram, Hezbollah and others.

Fourth, CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in the history of the United States and has many terrorism ties.  It is on a mission to stamp out all criticism of anything Islam-related, even if it’s true.  Indeed, there’s nary a terrorist that CAIR doesn’t defend.  Asserting that the 9/11 hijackers were Islamic terrorists is factual reporting, not “stereotyping.”  But CAIR wants the public to believe that anybody except for Muslims can be terrorists.  Besides, CAIR has no credibility and should not be given legitimacy by accommodating its gripes.

Read more at Front Page

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the Washington Times. She is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network” and the primary writer and researcher for “Council on American Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation”.

CAIR’s Newest Enemy

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

Great Idea, Ibrahim Hooper!

Chicago ABC Station, Financial Institutions Co-Sponsor CAIR Banquet

Tennessee: School enforces sharia, bans town hall on…sharia law

By Creeping Sharia:

via FBI-banned, DOJ classified unindicted terror funding co-conspirator, fed judge confirmed Hamas front group CAIR Welcomes Cancellation of Anti-Muslim Event in Tenn. School

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today said it has joined with concerned Muslims in Tennessee in welcoming cancellation of an anti-Muslim event scheduled for April 24 at a Knoxville high school.

Another American inflicted with Adult Onset Islam via Approval rescinded for Shari’a Law event at Farragut High School.

"It's kind of an aggressive tone on the flyer," said AbdelRahman Murphy.

“It’s kind of an aggressive tone on the flyer,” said AbdelRahman Murphy.

“Feel free hosting it anywhere else by renting out a banquet hall, but to host it at a public place is one that is not comfortable for the rest of us to know about,” said [AbdelRahman] Murphy.

6 News reached out to the Knoxville chapter of ACT! for America. They say it is about education.

“He is going to be coming to share with us his expertise on what Shari’a law can be doing to Tennessee and to America as a whole,” said John Peach with ACT! For America.

They also say the venue simply should not matter.

“We feel like it’s very important that we have our public institutions take part in this because it’s not meant to be a religious thing. It’s not a political thing. It’s particularly for education purposes,” said Peach.

There is no word yet if ACT! for America plans to hold the event in a new venue.

John Peach issued this statement late Friday afternoon:

“Why is it that Muslims engage in teaching about how good Islam is for Tennessee at the Cedar Bluff Library – a public building, but they feel “uncomfortable” when ACT! for America plans an event to show the opposite viewpoint at a public building? (This is documented as follows):

Muslims like the support the University of Tennessee gives them to host activities and venues on their campus. Furthermore, it likes its Muslim Student Association (MSA) to hold events at their tax supported public UT campus.

“Why is it that all Tennessee social study textbooks to be authorized for use in our public schools must be approved by Muslim affiliates? (Hundreds of reviews have exposed the fact that our textbooks are overwhelmingly biased toward Muslims over Christianity and Judaism, with Islam always portrayed as being more significant than all other religions).

“Political Correctness has gone amuck and is destroying our country. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? If it’s right for Muslims to host events in tax-funded public facilities, then what is wrong with a group of citizens wanting the same privilege?

“Last December, ACT! for America – Knoxville Chapter was granted permission by Knox County Schools to use the facilities of Farragut High School to hold an educational forum including two speakers, followed by an opportunity for the public to answer any questions of the two. This we called the Town Hall – Farragut.

“We in good faith and urgent vitality have been promoting this event for the past four months, believing we were following all the guidelines given to us. We have spent over $1500.00 to advance this cause, including taking out a special insurance policy just to cover this occasion.

“The purpose of the meeting was to educate our local citizens about the dangers of Sharia Law, especially as it negatively affects our children, our churches, our law enforcement personnel, and our community leaders. Now, due to the fear of Muslims in the Knoxville area, the venue for the event that was open to everyone was cancelled. This is a great example of what Sharia Law is doing to America.”

 

 

The Roots of CAIR’s Intimidation Campaign

pic_giant_041214_SM_The-Roots-of-CAIRs-Intimidation-Campaignby ANDREW C. MCCARTHY:

Author’s Note: This week, capitulating to Islamic-supremacist agitation led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Brandeis University reneged on its announced plan to present an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the heroic human-rights activist. In my 2010 book, The Grand Jihad, I devoted a chapter to the origins and purposes of CAIR, its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas-support network, and its aim to silence critics of Islamic supremacism. In light of the continuing success of this campaign – despite a federal terrorism-financing prosecution that exposed CAIR’s unsavory background – it is worth revisiting that history. What follows is an adapted excerpt from that chapter.

In January 1993, a new, left-leaning U.S. administration, inclined to be more sympathetic to the Islamist clause, came to power. But before he could bat an eye, President Bill Clinton was confronted by the murder and depraved mutilation of American soldiers in Somalia. A few weeks later, on February 26, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. The public was angry and appeasing Islamists would have to wait.

Yasser Arafat, however, sensed opportunity. The terrorist intifada launched at the end of 1987 had been a successful gambit for the Palestine Liberation Organization chief. Within a year, even as the body count mounted, the weak-kneed “international community” was granting the PLO the right to participate (though not to vote) in U.N. General Assembly sessions. And when Arafat made the usual show of “renouncing” terrorism – even as he was orchestrating terrorist attacks in conjunction with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other Islamist factions – the United States recognized him as the Palestinians’ legitimate leader, just as the Europeans had done. Arafat blundered in 1991, throwing in his lot with Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, and that seemed to bury him with the Bush 41 administration. But Clinton’s election was a new lease on life.

Anxious to chase the holy grail of Middle East peace and suddenly in need of demonstrating toughness against jihadist terror, the new “progressive” president was made to order for the wily Marxist terror master. If Arafat could resell his “I renounce terrorism” carpet yet again, chances were he could cash in. And so he did, purporting to commit the Palestinians to the 1993 Oslo Accords – an empty promise of peaceful coexistence exchanged for hundreds of millions in aid (much of which he pocketed), an open invitation to the Clinton White House (where he became a regular visitor), international recognition (as a statesman, no less!), and a ludicrous Nobel Peace Prize (forever degrading a once prestigious honor into a punch line).

The Muslim Brotherhood, for one, was not amused. Islamists had murdered Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981 for striking a peace pact with Israel. Sure, they knew Arafat and understood what chicanery he was up to. But acceptance of the Zionist entity’s right to exist was utterly unacceptable, even if done as a ploy.

Israel, the Brotherhood also realized, would not be the only thing squeezed by Clinton at Arafat’s urging. After a shaky start, the new president was winning global plaudits for his Orwellian “peace process.” Clinton must have known that Arafat was stringing him along, but with the theater of negotiation and ostensible progress drawing rave reviews, that was a problem for another day. The immediate concern was that Hamas jihadists could spoil the show with their implacable jihad, their blunt insistence that nothing less than Israel’s obliteration would satisfy them. That gave the fledgling administration a powerful incentive to crack down on them. Arafat would be the beneficiary as the Americans squeezed his rivals for power.

A ‘Media Twinkle’ in Philadelphia
Though the United States had been a cash cow for Hamas, it was thus a perilous time for the organization when 25 of its members and supporters gathered at a Marriott Hotel in Philadelphia on October 27, 1993. They were unaware that the FBI was monitoring their deliberations. The confab was a brainstorming exercise: How best to back Hamas and derail Oslo while concealing these activities from the American government?

A little more background to the Philadelphia meeting: For nearly two decades until his extradition in 1997, Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook was the most consequential Muslim Brotherhood operative in the United States. Now living in Egypt, he remains to this day deputy chairman of Hamas’s political bureau. In the early Nineties, he actually ran the terrorist organization from his home in Virginia.

During his time in the U.S., Marzook formed several organizations to promote the Palestinian jihad against Israel. In 1981, for public-relations purposes, he established the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) in conjunction with two other jihadists: future Hamas chief Khalid al-Mishal and Sami al-Arian (the latter was eventually convicted of conspiring to support Palestinian Islamic Jihad).

In December 1987, the intifada was launched and Hamas was born. Marzook immediately formed the “Palestine Committee” to serve as an umbrella organization, directing the various pro-Hamas initiatives that were developing. He brought under its wing both the IAP (which concentrated on “the political and media fronts”) and a fundraising entity he had established. That entity would eventually be called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) – though it was then known as the “Occupied Land Committee.” The reorganization would better enable the Palestine Committee to comply with the Muslim Brotherhood’s instructions to “increase the financial and the moral support for Hamas,” to “fight surrendering solutions” (like Oslo), and to publicize “the savagery of the Jews.”

It was under the auspices of the Palestine Committee that the 1993 Philadelphia meeting was convened. It was clear even then that Marzook’s Hamas network was anticipating the birth of yet another organization. The Palestine Committee’s amended by-laws declared that an as-yet-unnamed entity was already in the larval stage, “operat[ing] through” the IAP, and soon to “become an official organization for political work, and its headquarters will be in Washington, insha Allah.”

In the United States, the “political work” was crucial. The overarching mission, of course, was quite clear. As the IAP had explained in a December 1988 edition of its Arabic magazine, Ila Filastin, “The call for jihad in the name of Allah is the only path for liberation of Palestine and all the Muslim lands. We promise Allah, continuing the jihad way and the martyrdom’s way.” But while blatant summonses to jihad might stir the faithful in Islamic countries openly hostile to Jews, they were not going to fly in America – and even less so in an America whose financial heart had just been shaken by the jihadist bombing of the World Trade Center. The Brotherhood’s approach in the U.S. would have to be more subtle.

That was where the new organization would come in, as those gathered in Philadelphia – including Marzook’s brother-in-law and HLF co-founder Ghassan Elashi – explained. Although the Brotherhood had ideological depth and impressive fundraising mechanisms, Marzook had long been concerned that his network lacked the media and political savvy needed to advance an agenda in modern America. Now more than ever, they needed what HLF’s Shukri Abu Baker called “a media twinkle.”

In the U.S., Hamas was now perceived as the principal enemy of the popular “peace process.” After all, its charter explicitly called (and continues to call) for Israel’s annihilation by violent jihad. Therefore, its known supporters – the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestine Committee, the IAP, and the others – were tainted in the American mind as terror-abettors, hostile to U.S. interests. As one attendee urged in Philadelphia, “We must form a new organization for activism which will be neutral, because we are placed in a corner. . . . It is known who we are. We are marked.” The new entity, by contrast, would have a clean slate. Maybe it could steal a page out of Arafat’s “hear what I say, don’t watch what I do” playbook. The new entity’s Islamism and Hamas promotion would have to be less “conspicuous.” It would need to couch its rhetoric in sweet nothings like “social justice,” “due process,” and “resistance.” If it did those things, though, it might be more attractive . . . and effective. A Muslim organization posing as a civil-rights activist while soft-pedaling its jihadist sympathies might be able to snow the American political class, the courts, the media, and the academy. It might make real inroads with the transnational progressives who dominated the Clinton administration.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Megyn Kelly Embarrasses CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper

download (90)Answering Muslims:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) exists for one primary purpose: to silence critics of Islam. The best way to silence critics of Islam, however, is to masquerade as a civil rights organization. Thus, CAIR pretends to be concerned about Constitutional rights, while demonizing anyone who dares object to jihad, sharia, and the abuse of women. 

Sadly, the American media have been falling for CAIR’s tactics for years. Megyn Kelly is one of the few exceptions. Here’s her recent two-part obliteration of CAIR’s spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper. 

PART ONE

 

PART TWO

 

Check out Discover the Networks profile on Ibrahim Hooper

 

CAIR Reacts to Brandeis University’s Plan to Honor Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Brandeis University recently announced that it would be honoring women’s rights advocateAyaanHirsi Ali. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), however, despises Ali for her criticisms of Sharia and Jihad. Afternumerous complaints, Brandeis University bowed to Sharia, and cancelled its plans to honor Ali.This video is an attempt to introduce CAIR to the concept of consistency.
In case you missed the original parody, here it is: 

 

CAIR Blasts President Obama for His State of the Union Address

state-of-the-union-APClarion Project, BY RYAN MAURO:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, is blasting President Obama for the comments he made about the Middle East in his State of the Union speech. By criticizing Obama’s pledge to support Israel as a Jewish state, CAIR indirectly expressed its support for the elimination of the democratic U.S. ally.

“American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians as they engage in difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state for Palestinians, and lasting peace and security for the State of Israel – a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side,” said President Obama.

Ibrahim Hooper, the communications director of CAIR, responded by calling the statement a “very negative precedent.” He compared the identification of Israel as a Jewish to apartheid South Africa.

The opposition to Israel’s status as a Jewish state is a carefully-worded way of opposing Israel’s existence. This manipulative use of semantics was one of CAIR’s foundational purposes.

In 1993, the FBI wiretapped a secret meeting of Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas operatives in Philadelphia. The get-together led to the founding of CAIR the next year by two of the present leaders. The discussion focused on creating a new organization with a clean track record that could present a message more palatable to an American audience.

Omar Ahmad, one of CAIR’s later founders and former board chairman and Nihad Awad, CAIR’s current executive director, discussed how to handle the posing of a question about whether they want to destroy Israel.

“There is a difference between you saying ’I want to restore the ’48 land’ and when you say ‘I want to destroy Israel,’” Ahmad said.

In another exchange on the topic, someone said to Ahmad, “We don’t say that publicly. You cannot say that publicly, in front of Americans.” He concurred, replying, “We didn’t say that to the Americans.”

CAIR also expressed its disappointment with President Obama on the topic of National Security Agency intelligence-gathering. CAIR accuses the NSA of “cultivating Islamophobia” and says Congress should “restore the privacy rights of all citizens.”

The organization has helped spread exaggerated impressions of NSA operations and even sued the NSA alongside a Unitarian church. In October, it helped put together an interfaith coalition to protest the NSA. The Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro debated one of the organizers of the protest on Chinese television.

Another issue CAIR criticized President Obama for was the use of drones to eliminate terrorists. President Obama said he would scale back the usage of the weapon overseas to minimize anti-American sentiment.

CAIR is asking President Obama to address “the drone program’s lack of public accountability and transparency, claims of executive overreach, possible lack of due process in lethally targeting American citizens, and the high number of civilian casualties that have resulted from these attacks.”

Drone strikes are precise and the projected civilian casualty toll is always taken into account when launching them. There is no proof to the contrary. CAIR uses the relative term of “high number” to reinforce the impression that the U.S. government is essentially massacring civilians.

CAIR is also referring to the controversial drone strike that killed American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who joined Al-Qaeda and became a senior leader involved in planning operations against the U.S.. CAIR feels that the U.S. should have captured him and put him on trial and that his death is a violation of due process.

If the U.S. could have captured al-Awlaki, it would have—but he was hiding in Yemen and on the move. The killing of al-Awlaki, an American citizen, is no different than the killing of a bank robber or school shooter that is an American citizen. CAIR doesn’t tell that side because it would rather that its audience see the U.S. government as an out-of-control tyrant with an anti-Muslim agenda.

CAIR’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union raises a separate but related point. The organization references thecongressional testimony of its government affairs manager about drones in May 2013.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history. The federal government labeled it a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. The FBI’s official policy bans personnel from using CAIR as an outreach partner because of its links to Hamas and other Islamist radicals.

So why is CAIR being used for congressional testimony on counter-terrorism operations? How can CAIR, which was labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in terror funding, be invited to educate the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights?

CAIR’s deception-laced political influence operation was never aimed at the Left, Center or Right. This is not a partisan issue. The Islamists have friends and adversaries in each party.

Those concerned about Islamism must fight efforts to frame it as a Left/Right issue. If that is how it is viewed, then CAIR and its allies will know it can always count on one side to reflexively support it like a good teammate.

Liberals, conservatives and libertarians all have plenty of reasons to oppose Islamism and its apologists in the U.S. With the proper information, this can be a uniting issue.

 

The Hypocrisy of Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR’s ‘Islamophobic List’

36459-193808-1By Robert Spencer:

Editor’s Note: This is Part VI of an ongoing series by Robert Spencer highlighting human rights hypocrisy and fraudulent peace activists. For Part I see “The Hypocrisy of the ‘Islamophobia’ Scam,” for Part II see “The Hypocrisy of the Fatwa Against Terrorism,”  for Part III see “The Hypocrisy of the Feminist Response to Islam’s Oppression of Women,” for Part IV see “The Hypocrisy of the Western Christian Response to Muslim Persecution of Christians,” and for Part V see last week’s “The Hypocrisy of the Leftist Response to Ariel Sharon’s Death.”

Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) last week sent out a crafty and deceptive op-ed as a “service,” and of course our lazy, clueless and compromised mainstream media was happy to oblige him by publishing it. The op-ed, “Islamophobic ‘List’ Used to Justify Suspicion of Muslims,” seems to have been a response to Pamela Geller’s recent exhaustive summary at Breitbart of Islamic jihad and supremacist activity in America in 2013. In response, Hooper offered not honesty and reform, but disingenuousness and deception.

Hooper claimed that,

one of the bigoted themes often promoted by the growing cottage industry of Muslim-bashers is that the increasing level of Islamophobia online and in the public arena is merely a legitimate response to the violent actions of Muslims worldwide.

He thus reveals the dishonesty at the heart of the entire “Islamophobia” initiative: Islamic supremacists and leftists use the term to refer both to analyses of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism (e.g., what my colleagues and I do) and also to attacks on innocent Muslims (which neither I nor my colleague nor any decent person favors).

The objective is to make Americans think that any criticism of Islamic texts that jihadis use to incite violence worldwide threatens and endangers Muslims at home who don’t approve of that violence in the first place. Then by saying that “Muslim-bashers” claim that “Islamophobia” is a “legitimate response to the violent actions of Muslims worldwide,” Hooper is implying that those who decry violence and terror committed by Muslims in the name of Islam approve of violence against innocent, peaceful Muslims, as if to say, they had it coming.

Hooper cannily designs all this to obscure the real point: that people are suspicious of Islam because of jihad terror attacks — but not just because of them, but also because of the endless mau-mauing, intimidating, opposition to counter-terror efforts, claiming of victim status, faked hate crimes, smear campaigns against foes of jihad terror, and all the other things that make people suspicious of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslim organizations in the U.S.

No genuine attack on any innocent person, Muslim or otherwise, is ever justified. If Hamas-linked CAIR really wants to stop such attacks, it could do so by working sincerely to end the suspicions people have of Islam and Muslims — not with disingenuous “outreach” sessions designed to dispel “misconceptions” about Islam (i.e., spread more misconceptions about Islam, fool people into thinking it is a “Religion of Peace,” etc.), but by honestly working within Muslim communities and with law enforcement to root out jihadis and teach against the understanding of Islam that creates jihadis. Instead, Hamas-linked CAIR has opposed virtually every counter-terror measure that has ever been proposed, and one of its California chapters distributed a poster reading “Don’t talk to the FBI.”

You might wonder why Hamas-linked CAIR would do this if it wants to end “Islamophobia” (in the sense of suspicion of Islam) — surely Hooper, Awad and co. must know that those things increase such suspicion? Yes, I am sure they do — but in fact they want “Islamophobia” (both suspicion of Islam and attacks on peaceful Muslims) because they can use such attacks to claim victim status and the privileges that come with it, thus intimidating officials into thinking that surveillance of Islamic organizations is unjustified and endangers innocent people.

“These Islamophobes,” Hooper also asserted, “scour the Internet to highlight every act of violence or political instability that can be tied to Islam and Muslims.” At my website Jihad Watch, I chronicle Islamic jihad activity in the U.S. and around the world, and I never in ten years have had to “scour the Internet” to do so. On the contrary, there is so much jihad violence that rarely am I able to post all the news items I’d like to post; time and resources limit the ones I can get to. Whatever I have on Jihad Watch, there is always more jihad. But Hooper, of course, would prefer you didn’t know that.

Read more at PJ Media

CAIR’s Guide to Media Manipulation

Nihad & CoreyBY RYAN MAURO:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, is a master media manipulator. And it is passing on its skills to aspiring activists in ways that should offend and wake up every journalist.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism obtained a CAIR presentation about influencing the media and presented it in an online video (see below). The presentation bears the name of Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s communications director.

In 1993, Hooper was working for CAIR’s predecessor when he said, “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. In 2003, he allegedly said on a radio program that sharia law would replace the Constitution if Muslims became the majority.

One of the slides titled, “Characteristics of a Journalist,” displays the condescending attitude that CAIR has towards the media. The characteristics are as follows:

  • “They will expect you to do their work. Let them.”
  • “Does little primary research.”
  • “Under extreme deadline pressure.”
  • “Fears charges of inaccuracy.”

CAIR recognizes that journalists have to turn their stories in on time. They are often juggling multiple stories and are not encouraged to indefinitely pursue stories to their ultimate end, digging up every fact and following every lead. After all, most articles are short and are designed to only give a basic overview.

CAIR has offices around the country and staff members whose job is to develop personal relationships with media sources. Once CAIR convinces the media source that it is the authoritative spokesperson of the Muslim-American community, it becomes the spokesperson.

Through this relationship, CAIR can pitch stories complete with accompanying “facts” and quotes, offering the journalist or radio/TV producer a much-needed shortcut. The result is that CAIR, to a large degree, gets to write the narrative.

This relationship is best articulated by the words of Sarwat Husain,Vice Chair of CAIR. In 2008, she spoke at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) South Central Conference in San Antonio, Texas. ISNA is CAIR’s fellow U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and, along with CAIR, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-funding case in U.S. history which involved the Holyland Foundation.

According to the Investigative Project online video, she said:

“Media in the United States is very gullible, ok? And they will see that if you have something, especially as a Muslim, if you have something to say, they will come running to you—and take advantage of that.”

 

 

Read more at Clarion Project about internal Muslim Brotherhood documents detailing their intent to use media to influence policies and laws with the ultimate goal of “Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation “

 

After Nairobi Attack, CAIR Still Minimizing Shabaab’s Somali-American Recruitment

252_largeby IPT News: