Muslims Express Outrage Over CAIR’s Memorials Day Tweets

Muslims-React--to-CAIR-Memorial-Day-Tweets-IP_1By Ryan Mauro:

A number of Muslims are expressing their appreciation for U.S. soldiers and their outrage over comments made by Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) officials questioning whether to honor U.S. troops who gave their lives in wars they oppose. CAIR officials frequently depict American soldiers as murderers, imperialists and abusers of Muslims.

The Muslim backlash was sparked by a Clarion Project report on the topic, followed by a Fox and Friends television segment about it:

 

Zahra Billoo, the executive-director of CAIR’s San Francisco Bay Area chapter and one of the two officials that made the offensive Memorial Day weekend remarks, tweeted that the outrage is driven by anti-Muslim bigotry, sexism and racism:

The comments by CAIR officials prompted several Bosnian Muslims to thank U.S. soldiers for their sacrifices, with one explicitly saying that CAIR does not speak for them:

In addition, a number of Muslim human rights activists responded in statements to the Clarion Project:

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy:

“The real truth that CAIR and their Islamist colleagues at the Organization of the Islamic Conference hypocritically ignore is that our American sons and daughters in the military have sacrificed more to liberate free-thinking Muslims from the shackles of real oppression in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq than any other nation, especially Muslim-majority countries.

“Our military is ground zero in the ideological conflict against Islamism. Islamist groups like CAIR cannot both claim that Muslims should be conscientious objectors against ‘occupation’ while also claiming they respect their service and patriotism.

“The Nidal Hasans and Nasser Abdos of the world are natural byproducts of the deep anti-American mindset of Islamist groups like CAIR who incessantly demonize the American soldier and all America stands for in order to present Islamism as the alternative.

“Look no further than their name: CAIR views America and Islam as having ‘relations’ like two different entities rater than as ‘one nation under God.’

“Thousands of Muslims serve and have served America with distinction in spite of CAIR’s attempts to convince them otherwise.”

Read more at Clarion Project

The Pentagon’s Bow to Islamic Extremism

by :

“Caving to pressure from Muslim groups, the Pentagon has relaxed uniform rules to allow Islamic beards, turbans and hijabs. It’s a major win for political correctness and a big loss for military unit cohesion,” said a recent report.

This new relaxation of rules for Muslims comes at a time when the FBI is tracking more than 100 suspected jihadi-infiltrators of the U.S. military.  Just last month, Craig Benedict Baxam, a former Army soldier and convert to Islam, was sentenced to seven years in prison due to his al-Qaeda/jihadi activities.   Also last month, Mozaffar Khazaee, an Iranian-American working for the Defense Department, was arrested for sending secret documents to America’s enemy, Iran.

According to a Pentagon spokesperson, the new religious accommodations—to allow Islamic beards, turbans, and hijabs—which took effect very recently, would “reduce both the instances and perception of discrimination among those whose religious expressions are less familiar to the command.”

The report concludes that, “Making special accommodations for Islam will only attract more Muslims into the military at a time when two recent terror cases highlight the ongoing danger of Muslims in uniform.”

But it’s worse than that; for not only will it attract “more Muslims,” it will attract precisely the wrong kinds of Muslims, AKA, “Islamists,” “radicals,” etc.

This is easily demonstrated by connecting the dots and understanding that Muslims who adhere to visible, non-problematic aspects of Islam—growing beards and donning hijabs—often indicate their adherence to non-visible, problematic aspects of Islam.

Consider it this way: Why do some Muslim men wear the prescribed beard and why do some Muslim women wear the prescribed hijab? Most Muslims would say they do so because Islam’s prophet Muhammad commanded them to (whether via the Koran or Hadith).

Regarding the Muslim beard, Muhammad wanted his followers to look different from “infidels,” namely Christians and Jews, so he ordered his followers to “trim closely the moustache and grow the beard.” Accordingly, all Sunni schools of law maintain that it is forbidden—a “major sin”—for men to shave their beards (unless, of course, it is part of a stratagem against the infidel, in which case it is permissible).

The question begs itself: If such Muslims meticulously follow the minor, “outer” things of Islam simply because their prophet made some utterances concerning them in the Hadith, logically speaking, does that not indicate that they also follow, or at the very least accept as legitimate, the major, “inner” themes Muhammad constantly emphasized in both the Koran and Hadith—such as enmity for and deceit of the infidel, and, when capable, perpetual jihad?

Even in the Islamic world this connection between visible indicators of Islamic piety and jihadi tendencies are well known.  Back in 2011, when Islamists were dominating Egypt’s politics, secularist talk show host Amr Adib of Cairo Today mocked the then calls for a “million man beard” march with his trademark sarcasm: “This is a great endeavor! After all, a man with a beard can never be a thug, can never rape a woman in the street, can never set a church on fire, can never fight and quarrel, can never steal, and can never be dishonest!”

His sarcasm was not missed on his Egyptian viewership which knew quite well that it is precisely those Muslims who most closely follow the minutia of Muhammad—for example, by growing a beard—that are most prone to violence, deceit, and anti-infidel sentiments, all of which were also advocated by Islam’s prophet.

Speaking more seriously, Adib had added that this issue is not about growing a beard, but rather, “once you grow your beard, you give proof of your commitment and fealty to everything in Islam.”

Read more

Oath of Deception?

imagesCA9XA4JYby IPT News:

Belief in radical Islamic ideology could be grounds to deport immigrants, even after they’ve naturalized, a provocative report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) says.

The report, National Security Threats Should Be Denaturalized, comes from “a retired government employee with many years of experience in immigration administration, law enforcement, and national security matters” who writes under a pseudonym.

People already can be blocked from naturalization for affiliating with totalitarian groups, or engaging in or advocating violence to overthrow the U.S. government. The report argues that the totalitarian prohibition can apply to adherents of radical Islam.

“Why totalitarianism? Because under radical strains of Islam, such as Salafism, it is impossible to reconcile separation of church and state,” the report says. “All civil authority bows to the wisdom of religious clerics in a theocracy. The best existing example (if one can use that descriptor loosely) of such a theocracy in action is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The worst example in recent memory is the Taliban when it ruled Afghanistan. Can one doubt that both examples point clearly to a totalitarian form of government in which no form of peaceful dissension or religious liberty is tolerated? In fact, dissension and religious differences are dealt with brutally.”

Under the proposal, someone could be barred from becoming a citizen if he or she is a follower of radical Islam to the extent that Islam and sharia law should supersede secular law and liberty in the United States. And citizenship can be stripped if it later is determined the person failed to disclose those beliefs.

The report describes the two existing provisions for denaturalizing citizens under such circumstances. But there has been little focus or interest among federal authorities to aggressively pursue such cases, even when the offenders have been convicted of serious national security crimes.

The CIS report identifies 51 cases since 2003 involving naturalized citizens who were charged with and/or convicted of national security related violations. Of them, 34 (66 percent) were from Islamic countries or otherwise identified as being involved in an Islamist security threat violation case.

Denaturalized people revert to their prior immigration status, usually a permanent resident alien. But resident aliens convicted of certain crimes, particularly national security crimes, are subject to deportation. Even absent a criminal conviction, permanent residents can be deported if they obtained that status through fraud or misrepresentation.

This CIS report raises noteworthy issues that have lingered for nearly a decade. And while federal authorities appear to be lethargic in the pursuit of even national security denaturalization cases, there have been some successes such as Fawaz Damra and Abdurahman M. Alamoudi. Even the notorious criminal case against Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operative Sami Al-Arian began as a naturalization fraud investigation.

But a handful of victories in a sea of ignored cases is not really success. There is much room for improvement and, ironically, improvement may not even require legislative change but no more than shift in focus and willingness by executive branch agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting the violations. This matter appears ripe for congressional inquiry. The CIS report has opened that door.

See also:

Frank Gaffney: Stop Shariah Immigration (counterjihadreport.cm)

Allen West Tells Fox and Friends That Stealth Jihad Is Being Waged on America

By  at The Blaze:

Current Congressman and former Army Lt. Col Allen West appeared on Fox and Friends this morning to discuss what he described as “stealth jihad” within United States institutions. Rattling off examples and historical data, West accused organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood of trying to subvert practically every American institution under the sun, from the military to churches to the United States government. Moreover, West argued, the reality that it was a predominately Muslim threat was being ignored on both sides of the aisle because of political correctness. Or, as West put it, a “Tolerance that will lead to our cultural suicide.”

View the video here

Related articles:

The Jihadi Threat Within (Frontpage)

Report: FBI Investigates More Than 100 Suspected Islamic Extremists Within U.S. Military (The Blaze)

Muslims in the West: Loyal to Whom? (The Counterjihad Report)

Muslims in the West: Loyal to Whom?

MEF:

A briefing by Mark Durie
January 18, 2012


Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist and pastor of an Anglican church. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992. On January 18, he spoke to the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia.

 

 

Mark Durie began his lecture by noting the inherent friction between Islam and state citizenship as opposed to the Judeo-Christian tradition which encourages its followers to defer to local authority (and by extension state rule), whose prosperity and success will also benefit its subjects. These differences are rooted in Islam’s lack of distinction between religion and politics dating back to the Prophet Muhammad, who combined in his personality the offices of head of state, chief justice, supreme military commander, and high priest.

Muhammad stressed that Muslims must live wherever Islam was dominant so as not to become like those under whose rule they live. Given Islam’s non-differentiation between the religious and temporal aspects of life one’s political identity must influence one’s religious identity, and vice versa. Therefore, Muslims living outside the House of Islam risk developing a “conflicted allegiance.” “Sovereignty,” Durie explained, “only comes from Allah, so Muslims should submit only to authorities who rule by the laws of Allah. There is no concept of non-religious authority that is legitimate.”

Having said that, Islam is a pragmatic religion in which necessity may permit that which is forbidden. Hence living outside the House of Islam may be permissible under certain circumstances such as fleeing religious persecution within the Muslim state and proselytizing to non-believers: so long as this does not contribute to the strengthening of the non-Muslim nation or lead to preference of its rule to that of the House of Islam. Such acts are sinful and a Muslim should not serve and identify with any state or nation but the Muslim nation.

More recently, scholars have adjusted their views—or at least conveniently adopted new ones—to facilitate Islamic life outside Muslim lands. So much so that the United States has been defined as being part of the House of Islam because one’s ability to practice either radical or liberal Islam in that country is greater than in, say, Egypt.

In response, said Durie, the West “should encourage Muslims to settle down and become full participants, but without legitimizing this theological world view.” Some means must be found to encourage young Muslims to be proud of their country, whether or not it is a Muslim state, while firmly rejecting pressures for the institutionalization of Sharia law in Western legal systems. Still, Durie concluded, “freedom of religion is an unchallengeable value in our thinking.”

Summary account by Alex Berman