New Islamophobia Report: Authors Linked to Hamas

CAIR-Terrorist-Organization-HP_11

The new CAIR-AMP “Islamophobia Network” report could be used as an example of the phenomena of projection in a psychology class.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, July 21, 2016:

A new report on the so-called “Islamophobia Network” has been released, authored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the leader of American Muslims for Palestine — two groups with ties to Hamas financiers and a vivid history of extremism, slander and deception.

 

Here are three facts about the authors:

Both are linked to Hamas financiers based on prosecutions by the U.S. government.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), as explained in our factsheet, has a history of Islamist extremism including links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the Justice Department labeled CAIR an “unindicted co-conspirator” in a Hamas-financing trial and listed CAIR as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.

More specifically, CAIR was listed by the Justice Department as a part of the Brotherhood’s covert “Palestine Committee” to support Hamas in the United States.

The other official author is the University of California-Berkeley Center for Race and Gender. If you look more closely, you’ll see that the responsible section of the center is the Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project. So, who was the real author from the University’s staff?

The aforementioned project is led by Dr. Hatem Bazian, chairman of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), co-founder of Zaytuna College and co-founder of Students for Justice in Palestine. Click either of those two links to learn about the history of Bazian and his organization.

Bazian’s AMP has extensive links to the same Brotherhood/Hamas circle that CAIR does. Congressional testimony from Dr. Jonathan Schanzer, a terrorism finance analyst for the Treasury Department from 2004 to 2007, is damning.

Schanzer outlines how AMP is intertwined with three now-defunct organizations known to have been fronts for financing Hamas. Though he did not accuse AMP of illegal activity, it is apparent that AMP is run by a collection of officials from the Hamas support network in the United States.

Bazian also promotes modernized versions of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion-type conspiracy theories that have been referenced by Islamists for decades. In his narrative it’s always about wealthy hidden hands that puppeteer the most powerful institutions from behind a curtain. He has taught his students at Zaytuna College that this “Islamophobia Industry” is a creation of a war-seeking, military-industrial complex that wants to kill Muslims for profit.

 

It is their financing that is suspect.

It is CAIR and AMP, not the “Islamophobia Network,” that is closely associated with extremist and even terrorist financing. As Clarion Project has reported, CAIR has raised money from dubious foreign sources in possible violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, in addition to their apparent violation of their tax-exempt status. There are also detailed reports outlining alleged money-laundering by CAIR to disguise its donors.

Clarion Project also reported the little-noticed fact that CAIR sued two adversaries and “was so desperate to keep their records hidden from the American public that they voluntarily dismissed the case and dropped the lawsuit regarding those charges.”

As for AMP, NGO Monitor found that it is incorporated in Illinois but not as a 501 (c)3. For whatever reason, AMP receives its funding through a separate tax-exempt organization with the same address named “Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation.” Neither organization’s filings can be found on Internet websites like Guidestar.

 

They believe in lying and media manipulation.

 

Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas lie all the time. Islamist texts regularly justify or even mandate deception, particularly when dealing with perceived adversaries of the Muslim world (as they surely view the “Islamophobia Network”).

Two of CAIR’s founders, including its current executive director, were at a secret Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood meeting in Philadelphia in 1993. The transcripts show the participants, including one of CAIR’s co-founders, emphasizing using deception to influence American public opinion and how to play tricks with semantics. There was no room for interpretation.

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.

CAIR has even coached supporters on how to manipulate media coverage.

The new CAIR-AMP “Islamophobia Network” report could be used as an example of the phenomena of projection in a psychology class. They are accusing their adversaries of running a well-funded, deceptive, interconnected network. They assume their opponents are doing this because that is exactly what they are doing.

Also see:

***

An Award-Winning Documentary About Islamic Terrorists Becomes Hate Speech

video grabIPT, by Steven Emerson
Investor’s Business Daily
July 15, 2016

At what point over the past 20 years did citing statements and literature by Islamic terrorists become banned “hate speech?”

A documentary that I produced in 1994 for PBS concerning civilizational jihad won numerous awards, yet YouTube in recent days removed a video posted by CounterJihad that covered the very same topic in much more limited scope.

Both my film, “Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America,” and CounterJihad’s “Killing for a Cause: Sharia Law & Civilizational Jihad” expose the Islamification of the West waged by the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organizations in the U.S. The Brotherhood, born in Egypt in 1928, is the fountainhead of nearly every deadly Islamist organization on the planet today.

I quoted Abdullah Azzam, the Muslim leader most responsible for expanding the jihad into an international holy war, speaking in Brooklyn, N.Y.: “The jihad, the fighting, is obligatory on you wherever you can perform it. And just as when you are in America you must fast – unless you are ill or on a voyage – so, too, must you wage jihad. The word jihad means fighting only, fighting with the sword.”

CounterJihad quotes from a Brotherhood governing document: “The (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.”

YouTube in its “hate speech” policy explains that it refers “to content that promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as: race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation/gender identity.”

Neither project did any such thing.

All that’s changed over the past two decades is the ability of Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to successfully exert their will on a very sensitive and politically correct media and cultural elite.

YouTube eventually reposted CounterJihad’s video, but the exercise is telling.

CAIR and its cohorts — including the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Circle of North America — spend millions to portray all Muslims as the real victims of every Islamic terrorist massacre against innocent Westerners.

After every Islamist terror attack, they rush to the microphones to blame U.S. foreign policy for inciting the sadistic killers, often before law enforcement confirms anything. They reinforce recruitment propaganda that says the West has engaged in a “war with Islam” and therefore deflect responsibility from the murderers themselves.

Their latest stunt is a report on the contrived term “Islamophobia,” which suggests that those who fear Islamic terrorism are racist and behave irrationally toward Muslims.

They have become incredibly effective at inflaming tensions between Muslims and Westerners, who by and large harbor no ill will toward each other.

Their “war on Islam” and claims of Islamophobia distract from the underlying agenda of Islamic terrorists.

They intend to establish a global empire known as a Caliphate governed by Sharia law. They are engaged in a full-scale overt and covert war to cripple every Western ideal that stands in their way.

CAIR sabotages prospects of unification by telling Muslim Americans to not cooperate with law enforcement. They assist in raising money for radical mosques and their fiery imams in the U.S. through their actions. They preach solidarity with their Middle Eastern terrorist overseers.

CAIR’s roots are firmly planted in a Hamas-support network in the U.S. created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Every statement it issues includes that asterisk at the end, although one would be hard-pressed to find anyone working in the media brave enough to cite it.

San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook and Orlando gunman Omar Mateen found resonance in the videos of the late al-Qaida ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki, which indoctrinated them with radical Islamist teachings and instructed them to become martyrs. The jihadists behind the carnage in Brussels and Paris were all directed and influenced by ISIS.

Let’s stop the nonsense.

By portraying all non-Muslims as enemies, CAIR and its allies fail to educate anyone about the true nature of Islamic terrorism.

If CAIR and its fellow travelers were truly concerned about Muslims in the U.S., they should reject assaults on the values of Western culture and condemn those who exploit Islam as the inspiration for horrific murders.

That’s not hate speech. It is a truth that was just as valid 20 years ago as it is today.

Steven Emerson is the Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

CAIR Chief’s Reflexive Terror Denial Stands Apart

Nihad-AwadIPT News, July 15, 2016

Before the bodies of all the victims had been removed from the streets of Nice, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad insisted that religion had nothing to do with the terrorist attack that killed at least 84 people.

A French resident of Tunisian descent rammed a truck into a crowd of revelers gathered to watch fireworks commemorating Bastille Day. The truck traveled as much as two kilometers, leaving twisted bodies in its wake.

French President Francois Hollande described the “undeniable terrorist nature” of the attack, which was further established by the presence of guns and explosives inside the killer’s truck.

“All of France is under the threat of Islamic terrorism,” Hollande said. “Our vigilance must be relentless.”

To Awad, this was reckless and inflammatory.

“French President #Hollande is pouring oil on the fire by describing the #Nice crime as Islamic terrorism and subjects France’s Muslims to danger,” Awadwrote, in Arabic, on Twitter. “What is Islamic about this crime?”

Plenty of analysts have shown exactly how terrorist groups like ISIS are deeply rootedin Islamic theology. As IPT Shillman Senior Fellow Pete Hoekstra noted, Islamist terrorists have been calling for such attacks for years, and al-Qaida specifically suggested this kind of attack in 2010, using a mock Ford-150 ad: “With the right tools and a little effort, the truck can be turned into a killing machine from a Wes Craven horror film,” an article in al-Qaida’s Inspire magazine said.

That seems to be a pretty good description for what happened in Nice.

ISIS spokesman Abū Muhammad al Adnānī ash Shāmī made a similar suggestion in a2014 statement: “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war … kill him in any manner or way however it may be … Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.” [Emphasis added]

Awad’s denial does nothing to discredit these ideas or the Islamic theology underpinning them. In another tweet, he claimed such talk was “blaming all Muslims for the heinous #Nicemurders.#Don‘tCallTerroristsJihadists.”

Compare Awad’s reaction with other Muslim voices. He doesn’t win points for courage.

Writing in the Telegraph, former Islamist Maajid Nawaz begged Muslims and non-Muslims alike to stop pushing the counter-productive “nothing to do with Islam” message. “Your good intentions towards us Muslims are only making the problem worse,” he wrote.

Terrorist groups like ISIS successfully recruit new members in part because “we have allowed hardline Islamism to permeate our communities and mobilise the vulnerable,” Nawaz wrote. “To stop it we have to make it less attractive, and that is a long-term struggle, similar to those against racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism.”

He could have been speaking directly to Awad when he added, “please stop denying the nature of jihadism. Please stop ignoring the narratives which drive these attacks. Instead of aiding extremists who insist Islam today is perfect, perhaps you should aid us beleaguered reformist Muslims who are attempting to address this crisis within Islam against all the odds.”

Nawaz also called out the hypocrisy of critics who don’t think images of the carnage in Nice should be shown.

Speaking on Fox News Channel, American Islamic Forum for Democracy President Zuhdi Jasser explained that “intoxicant of theocratic Islam, the sharia state” must be confronted for the terror to wane. That starts by “looking at the schools of thought of jihadism, Wahabism and Salafism. And the fact that most Americans don’t even know what those terms are is a crime.”

Unable to argue on the merits, Awad and his CAIR colleagues tend to dismiss Jasseras a sellout and simply ignore reformist voices like Nawaz’s.

But even Hamza Yusuf, founder and president of Berkeley’s Zaytunah College, an Islamic institution, acknowledges there is an Islamic root for the recent wave of terrorism. In an essay he titled “The Plague Within” – which he posted after terror attacks in Orlando, Baghdad, Bangladesh and elsewhere that were carried out during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan – Yusuf likened radical interpretations of Islam to “brain-eating amoebas.”

Citing another cleric, Yusuf said the plague is “the bitter harvest of teachings that have emanated from pulpits throughout the Arabian Peninsula, teachings that have permeated all corners of the world, teachings that focus on hatred, exclusivity, provincialism, and xenophobia. These teachings anathematize any Muslim who does not share their simple-minded, literalist, anti-metaphysical, primitive, and impoverished form of Islam, and they reject the immense body of Islamic scholarship from the luminaries of our tradition.”

While Yusuf still seems to balk at the phrase “Islamic radicalization,” he still called for action from scholars and others to counter the ideology driving the terrorism: “What we do not need are more voices that veil the problem with empty, hollow, and vacuous arguments that this militancy has little to do with religion; it has everything to do with religion: misguided, fanatical, ideological, and politicized religion. It is the religion of resentment, envy, powerlessness, and nihilism.” [Emphasis added]

Yusuf has spoken at CAIR fundraisers, and the organization spotlighted a message of his just last year.

These are but a few examples of Muslims who are trying to wage a battle of ideas within Islam in hopes of discrediting the ideology that fuels shooting massacres in Orlando and Paris, bombing massacres in Turkey, Belgium Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and now a vehicle massacre in Nice.

With the possible exception of Maajid Nawaz, none of them has the profile and bully pulpit Awad and his organization enjoy. Reporters quote them all the time and television news airs their views almost every day.

The message so far – don’t talk about religion when religious zealots kill – is a wasted opportunity of immeasurable proportions.

Islam, Revolution, and Black Lives Matter

CiJnews

CiJnews

Crisis Magazine, by William Kirkpatrick, July 14, 2016: (h/t Christine Williams at Jihad Watch)

In a speech delivered to the Annual MAS-ICNA (Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America) Convention in December 2015, Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), urged Muslim Americans to take up the cause of Black Lives Matter. “Black Lives Matter is our matter,” he said; “Black Lives Matter is our campaign.”

At the same conference, Khalilah Sabra, another activist, told the Muslim audience, “Basically you are the new black people of America… We are the “community that staged a revolution across the world. If we could do that, why can’t we have that revolution in America?” “That revolution” is apparently a reference to the “Arab Spring” revolutions which were inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood and which brought death and destruction to wide swaths of the Middle East and North Africa.

Do CAIR and other activist groups merely want to support Black Lives Matter, or do they hope to recruit blacks to their own cause? In 2014, ISIS used the protests and clashes in Ferguson, Missouri as an opportunity to attempt to recruit blacks to radical Islam. But ISIS is a known terrorist organization while CAIR, despite its shady history, is considered by many to be a moderate, mainstream Muslim organization. Thus, if it wanted to convert blacks, it would presumably want to convert them to a moderate version of Islam.

Or would it? According to Paul Sperry and David Gaubatz, the authors of Muslim Mafia, the supposedly moderate CAIR acts like an underworld cospiracy. In fact, it (along with numerous other prominent Muslim groups) was named by a U.S. court as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist funding case. In addition, CAIR has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates. Moreover, CAIR is a direct outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is also listed as a terrorist group by the UAE, as well as by Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That’s the same Muslim Brotherhood that fomented the “Arab Spring” revolutions, the likes of which Khalilah Sabra wants to bring to America.

The move to bring black Americans into the Islamic fold actually predates CAIR and ISIS by quite a few generations. Black Muslim organizations such as Louis Farrakhan’s The Nation of Islam have been recruiting blacks to their unorthodox brand of Islam for decades. The vast majority of blacks have resisted the temptation to join, perhaps because of NOI’s overt racism, its anti-Semitism, and its criticism of Christianity. In any event, it seems that the Black Muslim movement is being gradually displaced by traditional Sunni Islam. That’s because Sunni Islam has a much better claim to legitimacy—it being a worldwide religion that traces its roots back not to a 1930s Detroit preacher named Wallace Fard Muhammad, but to a seventh century prophet named Muhammad.

Will Islam catch on with black Americans? A great many blacks in America have a strong commitment to Christianity, which serves to act as a buffer against conversion to Islam. Still, it’s likely that Islam will make more inroads into the black community than it has in the past. For one thing, traditional Islam doesn’t have the “kook” factor which keeps most blacks at a distance from The Nation of Islam. The NOI belief system includes giant space ships, an evil scientist who created a race of “white devils,” and, most recently, an embrace of Dianetics.

By contrast, traditional Islam looks much more like … well, like a traditional religion. Indeed, when approaching Christians, Islamic apologists like to play up the similarities between the two religions. Each year around Christmastime, Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s Public Relations Director, sends out a Christmas letter with the message, “We have more in common than you think.”

One of the common elements is Jesus, who is honored as a great prophet in Islam. The self-proclaimed leader of the Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas on July 7, 2016 once wrote of feeling called to follow Jesus into Islam. In November 2015, the Reverend Jeff Hood, a white leftist pastor, wrote:

I have no question that Jesus is so intimately incarnated with and connected to our Muslim friends that he has become one. If we want to walk with Jesus in this moment of extreme oppression and marginalization, we will too.

Islam is an equal-opportunity recruiter. It is open to white leftists and black boxers alike. But Islamic proselytizers may see the present moment as an opportune time to concentrate on blacks. Why is that? Perhaps mainly because our educational system has managed to convince both black and white students that America is a racist society that was built on the back of slavery. Almost all students have been indoctrinated in the narrative that America has a shameful history and heritage. For blacks, however, this version of American history is more plausible because their ancestors actually did suffer from the ravages of slavery and the humiliation of Jim Crow laws. Nevertheless, during the Civil Rights era and afterwards, both blacks and whites worked hard to heal racial divisions. Racism—both black and white—seemed to be dying a natural death until leftists, with the aid of the media and the Obama administration, managed to resuscitate it. Despite the two-time election of a black president and the appointment or election of black Attorney Generals, black Secretaries of State, black Supreme Court justices, a black chief of Homeland Security, black mayors, and black police chiefs, a number of blacks seem convinced that white racism is the number one factor that is keeping them down.

Enter CAIR and other Muslim “civil rights” groups that are only too happy to reinforce this narrative. They profess to understand the plight of American blacks because they claim to be victims of a similar oppression—victims of colonialism, racism, and Islamophobia. Part of their pitch is that there is no discrimination in Islam. That might seem a hard sell if you’re familiar with the history of the Arab slave trade or with Islam’s own version of Jim Crow, the dhimmi system. The trouble is, those items have been dropped down the memory hole. The same teachers and textbooks that excoriate the Christian West tend to present Islam as though it were the font of all science and learning.

It might be hoped that blacks who convert will choose some milder form of Islam—something like the Sufi version practiced by Muhammad Ali after he left The Nation of Islam. Unfortunately, that’s not likely because CAIR, ISNA, and similar Islamist groups are practically the only game in town. They have successfully managed to present themselves as the official face of Islam in America, and ISNA, along with the Muslim Brotherhood-linked North American Islamic Trust, controls a majority of the major mosques.

In backing Black Lives Matter, CAIR and company run the risk that their own radicalism will be revealed. Apparently, they don’t consider that to be much of a risk. They know that the court eunuchs in the media will do their best to mainstream Black Lives Matter as a peaceful movement, just as the media has accepted the premise that CAIR itself is a mainstream, moderate organization.

CAIR can also count on President Obama to take the side of Black Lives Matter. Recently, he went so far as to compare it to the Abolitionist Movement against slavery. CAIR is no doubt confident that Obama has its back too. After all, the president made it clear from the start of his administration that he supported the Muslim Brotherhood—the “Mothership” (to borrow an NOI term) out of which CAIR sprang.

At the MSA-ICNA Convention, CAIR and associates felt safe to reveal their revolutionary side. They understand that Obama has a penchant for revolutionary causes—provided that they are leftist (the Castro brothers in Cuba) or Islamist (the “Arab Spring” revolutions) in nature. Before his first election, Obama promised a fundamental transformation of American society. CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are also interested in a fundamental transformation. Indeed, the chief theorists of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, were heavily influenced by Lenin and by communist revolutionary thought. So was Maulana Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, the Asian equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Islam,” wrote Maududi, “is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals.” He added, “‘Muslim’ is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary program.”

That statement has to rank fairly high on the fundamental-transformation scale, and it bears a striking resemblance to the tear-it-down-to-build-it-up leftist school of thought to which Obama belongs. Whether or not the fundamental transformation that Obama desires is the same as that sought by Islamists, he does seem anxious to effect one before his term in office runs out.

The emerging confluence of interests between radical Muslim groups, radical black groups, and a leftist president bent on a radical transformation of America should give us more than pause; it should alarm us. Does Obama intend to speed up the leftward movement of American society during his remaining months in office? Does he hope to accelerate the Islamization of America through a coalition of radical black, leftist, and Islamist groups? Or does he even care what the change is, as long as it’s revolutionary in nature?

Most Americans tend to assume that we are still operating under the same rules that have governed our society since its founding. They have not come to terms with the possibility that some of our leaders are operating under a completely different set of rules—what leftist activist Saul Alinsky called “rules for radicals.”

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, includingPsychological Seduction; Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and the forthcoming The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

Also see:

CAIR Met With Congress 325 Times in 2016

CAIR founder and executive director Nihad Awad (right) with Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director and spokesperson.

CAIR founder and executive director Nihad Awad (right) with Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director and spokesperson.

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, July 13, 2016:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group identified by the Justice Department as a Muslim Brotherhood entity and designated as terrorists by the United Arab Emirates, boasts of having 325 meetings with members of Congress or their staff over the last year.

The group says it also enjoyed $3 million worth free advertising through media appearances this year alone, resulting in 50 million views of its work.

A 2007 court filing by federal prosecutors notes how two of CAIR’s founders were wiretapped at a secret Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993, where they participated in a robust discussion of how to use deception to influence American public opinion in a direction favorable to the Islamist cause. It states:

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.

CAIR’s fundraising video boasts that there were 14,000 mentions of CAIR on radio or television this year alone, and that it has a database of 1.6 million media contacts to use. The organization said it has 65 trained spokespeople, 29 offices and 35 full-time lawyers.

The White House’s director of community partnerships said in 2012 that there had been “hundreds” of meetings between U.S. government agencies and CAIR. However, CAIR was curiously left out of President Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism Summit in 2015, even though other Islamists were invited.

After participants were made known, CAIR attacked President Obama’s event as Islamophobic.

CAIR’s power can give the impression that it is the leader of the Muslim-American community, but it is, in reality, the manifestation of a well-funded and well-organized Brotherhood network that has been building up its presence in the U.S. since the 1960s. CAIR was born out of this network in 1994 and has prospered with plentiful foreign financing.

A 2011 Gallup poll found that CAIR is most popular Muslim-American organization but only about 12% of Muslim-Americans say CAIR is the organization that most represents them, despite its strong name recognition, media presence and infrastructure.

CAIR’s boasts are a reminder of its power to intimidate, pressure and influence. However, since close to 90 percent of the Muslim-American community says CAIR does not represent them, there is a leadership gap that can be filled by a non-Islamist Muslim group whose values and record more closely reflect those of the Muslim-American community.

Muslims who are against Islamism have a steep hill to climb in competing with CAIR and its allies, but we must remember that they have low name identification and are attacked and excluded by their Islamist competitors who have had much more time and resources to develop.

If CAIR can accomplish all this, then imagine what a genuinely moderate organization could accomplish with time and resources.

No Sacred Cows? The Washington Post Continues Carrying CAIR’s Water

cair23by Steven Emerson
IPT News
July 5, 2016

Let’s say the Church of Scientology launched a program it said was aimed at creating healthy work environments and bridging family divides, even those involving church critics.

What would the news stories read like? After all, there are ever-expanding accounts of former Scientologists who say they were physically abused, or who werecut off from loved ones deemed hostile to the church.

Virtually any news story about the new program would cover this context in detail. It’s reasonable to expect major news outlets would devote entire stories comparing the new claims to the church’s history. It would be inconceivable to omit that background even if the new program proved to be a smashing success.

This is what makes the Washington Post‘s coverage of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) so confounding. The newspaper, which rarely hesitates to investigate the backgrounds of politicians, companies and more, has never seen fit to delve into CAIR’s checkered history.

Independence Day brought yet another story casting CAIR as a reliable partner in the fight against terrorism and Islamist extremism. CAIR’s Florida chapter, the headline says, “is doing what the government has so far failed to do.” It tells the story of “intervention teams” on alert in South Florida to help cases of radicalized Muslims who might be thinking of committing violence. Some of the seven individuals identified so far have been referred to law enforcement, the story says.

There’s no way to know if that assertion is true. It is a claim taken at face value.

There’s also no way – short of doing their own independent searches – for readers to know that CAIR itself has direct, court-acknowledged connections to a terrorist group. They don’t know because the Post didn’t mention it in this, or any other story, since the information came to light in 2007.

From its first days, CAIR was a cog in a Hamas-support network called the Palestine Committee, records show. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood created the committee to help Hamas “with what it needs of media, money, men and all of that.”

1675At least three original CAIR officials, Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad and Nabil Sadoun, are on the Palestine Committee’s telephone list. Mousa Abu Marzook, a longtime Hamas political leader, is the first name listed. Ahmad, who sometimes was identified as “Omar Yehya,” also is listed on the Palestine Committee’s executive board.

Eyewitnesses told federal investigators that Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood connections shared by CAIR founders were widely known when the organization was founded.

Bylaws establish that the Muslim Brotherhood executive office created the Palestine Committee “to serve the Palestinian cause on the U.S. front.” A 1991 document repeatedly refers to the Brotherhood’s role directing Palestine Committee activities. Among the instructions that year: “Collecting of donations for the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] from the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] and others.”

Another report from around that time explicitly states that the committee sees its charge as “defending the Islamic cause in Palestine and support for the emerging movement, the Hamas Movement.”

This is the mission into which CAIR was born.

Omar Ahmad, a co-founder and longtime CAIR national chairman, was described as “a leader within the Palestine Committee” in testimony by FBI Special Agent Lara Burns.

Nihad Awad, the only executive director in CAIR’s history, joined Palestine Committee colleagues during a weekend-long emergency meeting in 1993 to discuss ways to “derail” the U.S.-brokered Oslo Accords. The deal was hailed as a potential peace breakthrough and created an autonomous Palestinian Authority.

That was unacceptable to the Palestine Committee because it sidelined the Islamists in Hamas, and because it included Palestinian acceptance of Israel’s existence. Concerned that the American public would see them as terror supporters, the group’s officials instructed members never to mention Hamas by name, instead choosing to reverse the spelling and talk about “Samah.” Awad, in this FBI transcript, did just that.

The group also discussed creating “a new organization for activism” which might be better received publicly because “we are marked.”

CAIR was created the following summer, where it promptly appeared on the Palestine Committee’s next meeting agenda.

The exhibits described above have never been reported in the Post.

When the Post has written about CAIR’s background, it has been at the most superficial of levels: CAIR minimizes its status as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas Hamas-financing trial in which these documents became public record; a “fact-check” which concludes that the unindicted co-conspirator label “is one of those true facts that ultimately gives a false impression.”

Would the Scientologists receive similar kid-glove treatment? Would a candidate for office?

This is not a case of differing perspectives. The documents were seized from the participants and reflect real-time Palestine Committee activities.

While CAIR was never charged, prosecutors made it clear in court filings that they had evidence showing CAIR was part “of the conspiracy” and acted “in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

“CAIR has been identified by the Government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew,” they wrote.

The Post is led by Marty Baron, a man who has demonstrated the tenacity to take on religious organizations as mighty as the Catholic Church when they might be engaged in improper activity. So far, however, that same gritty determination has not been focused on the Islamists who run CAIR, despite their profile and their organization’s checkered history.

That is a shame.

Also see:

The Washington Post’s Chronic CAIRless Syndrome

WashPo-Logo-Large
CAMERA, June 29, 2016

Why do Washington Post reporters and editorial systematically keep relevant background about the Council on American Islamic Relations from readers?

CAMERA has questioned Post coverage of CAIR—an unindicted co-conspirator in the United States’ biggest terrorism funding trial to date—for years. No answer has been forthcoming, not even after CAMERA provided the newspaper’s last three ombudsmen with public record information casting doubt on CAIR’s self-portrait as a civil rights advocate for Muslim Americans.

The late Deborah Howell, Post ombudsman from 2005 to 2008, told CAMERA’s Washington office she had brought its complaint to the newsroom’s attention but, in essence, staffers rebuffed discussion of it. And The Post has continued citing CAIR as a credible source, virtually never telling readers that, among other things:

*In that 2009 federal case, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development retrial, five men were sentenced to prison for raising more than $12 million for Hamas. Hamas is the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, a U.S.-government designated terrorist organization. Receiving a 65-year term was Ghassan Elashi, co-founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter;

*In an out-of-court settlement of a suit it brought, the council reduced libel claims to omit contesting assertions it was founded by Hamas members, founded by Islamic terrorists and funded by Hamas supporters;

*Including Elashi, at least five former CAIR lay leaders or staffers have been arrested, convicted and/or deported on weapons or terrorism charges; and

*A council “media guide” to proper reporting of Islamic issues was “pure propaganda,” according to Investor’s Business Daily.

All this and more can be found in CAMERA’s 2009 Special Report, “The Council on American Islamic Relations: Civil Rights, or Extremism?” copies of which have been provided to Post staffers on numerous occasions.
Giving CAIR a pass. And another. And another

CAMERA has not urged The Post, or other news outlets, to ignore CAIR. Rather, it repeatedly has recommended that the newspaper and other media provide the minimum context necessary. Readers reasonably ought to be able to determine for themselves whether the council is, as it implies, a Muslim American version of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) or the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), or, as its history indicates, a Muslim Brotherhood derivative.

But no. When it comes to CAIR, The Post has its back. Among recent examples:

*“How the Trump campaign decided to target Muslims; Influenced by 9/11, candidate and aides focused on ‘radical Islam,’” June 22, 2016. CAIR’s Corey Saylor, director of its “department to monitor and combat Islamophobia” is quoted. No information about CAIR is included;

*“After Orlando, anxiety fills Muslim congregations; Worshipers in nightclub shooter’s town, already enduring epithets, worry about what might come next,” June 19. This Post report cites “Omar Saleh, a lawyer with the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Florida chapter, which has offered free legal assistance to the Muslim community in which [Omar] Mateen [who committed the Orlando nightclub massacre] lived.” Again, no background on CAIR;
*“Trump’s broadside after massacre shakes Islamic group,” June 15. The feature leads with, and follows uncritically,CAIR’s claims of rising anti-Muslim sentiments and actions across the United States. Yet again, nothing in the article would flag the organization’s credibility for readers;
*“‘It could get a lot worse for Muslims in America’,” a May 4 Op-Ed by Post columnist Dana Milbank. Writing “[Presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee Donald] Trump can’t be blamed for everything his followers do. But his ascent has coincided with a rise in the number of anti-Muslim incidents to the highest level the Council on American-Islamic Relations has ever found.” Readers are not told that CAIR has a history of exaggerated claims about anti-Muslim activity. Nor are they reminded that, the council’s old and new warnings of “Islamophobia” notwithstanding, according to FBI hate crime statistics Jews still are members of the religious group most likely to be targeted. In 2014, for example, of more than 1,100 reported hate crimes based on religion, nearly 57 percent aimed at Jews, 16 percent at Muslims.
Coincidentally, while The Post repeatedly presented CAIR as a credible source, including reporting its post-Orlando offer of legal assistance, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the council should be tried for fraud. The case involves hundreds of people who had relied on CAIR for legal aid. See “CAIR to Stand Trial for Massive Fraud; The Council on American Islamic Relations is now charged with fraud and cover-up perpetrated against hundreds of Muslims,” The Clarion Project, June 22. The project is a non-profit organization that describes itself as “fighting extremism, promoting dialogue.”

If a tree falls on you in the forest …

The Post does not appear to have covered the appeals verdict. A Nexis search indicates no U.S. newspapers did.

The Clarion Project, like CAMERA, like historian and publisher of Middle East Quarterly Daniel Pipes, The Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Steven Emerson and many others have been listed, or better, putatively black-listed, in a CAIR report. The council tars them as key players in an imagined national network fostering Islamophobia. The report, referred to obliquely by The Post in its June 15 article, is risible, slanderous and potentially libelous.

Asked about it by KPFA-FM radio, Berkeley, Cal., CAMERA replied, in part:

“CAIR’s self-described study of ‘Islamophobic networks’ alleges ‘CAMERA is pervasively inaccurate and disguises its anti-Muslim agenda by omitting important information.” ‘Pervasively inaccurate’ sweepingly implies a pattern of error. Yet the study appears to supply not one example. The allegation itself is not only pervasively inaccurate, it is slanderously and perhaps libelously so.

“As to our supposed camouflaged ‘anti-Muslim agenda,’ again, where are the examples? The one specific mention is of our ISNA [Islamic Society of North America] Special Report—but nothing in the report itself is quoted. Perhaps because it can’t be; CAIR attempts a weak smokescreen, confessing ‘unlike other Islamophobic organizations, CAMERA does not communicate obvious bigotry in their literature.’ (See CAMERA’s Special Report, “The Islamic Society of North America: Active, Influential and Rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood,” 2012)
“In fact, CAMERA does not communicate bigotry at all. But it’s our contention, which we believe the public record amply supports, that CAIR’s objective is not so much to fight anti-Muslim prejudice but to use the cry of ‘Islamophobia’ to censor discussion and analysis of Islamic extremism.”
FBI Director James Comey said that last year the bureau had more than 900 active cases, some in each of the 50 states, into suspected Islamic State sympathizers or other potential terrorists. George Washington University’s Program on Extremism noted the arrests in the United States in 2015 of 56 individuals on suspicion of plotting on behalf of or otherwise supporting the Islamic State. (See “Washington Times Notes Record Terror Levels,” CAMERA, Dec. 7, 2015.) Islamophobia, or newsworthy information?
Islamic extremism short of terrorist radicalization also would seem to be newsworthy, by definition. But not apparently to CAIR, which purports to find “Islamophobia” everywhere. As the Clarion Project notes, “CAIR wages an unrelenting campaign to discredit its critics as anti-Muslim bigots and moderate Muslims as puppets of an “Islamophobia network” (“Special Report: The Council on American Islamic Relations; Fact Sheet”. The paper covers some of the same material as CAMERA’s Special Report on CAIR, but extends the period under review through 2013.)

In relying uncritically on CAIR as a source, The Washington Post and other news media undercut themselves and short-change readers, listeners and viewers. The question is why? The answer would be newsworthy.

Witness Tells Senate Committee CAIR Engaged In Corrupt Activities With Hamas

ISIS (1)Daily Caller, by Kerry Picket, June 28, 2016:

WASHINGTON — A national security consultant testified Tuesday he conducted undercover research as an intern for Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and accused the Islamic organization at a Senate Oversight Judiciary Committee hearing of corruption and other crimes.

Chris Gaubatz, the undercover consultant, told the committee, “During my time conducting undercover research as an intern for Hamas, both at CAIR MD/VA in Herndon, VA, and CAIR National in Washington DC, I preserved documents that revealed Hamas doing business as CAIR: conspired to cover-up fraud committed by one of their immigration attorneys; discussed coordinating with Bin Laden and his associates; placed staffers and interns inside congressional offices -conspired to influence congress, specifically judiciary, intelligence, and homeland security committees; impacted congressional districts, tasking each Hamas Chapter office with influencing at least two legislators.”

Gaubatz also claimed he ordered books from the Saudi embassy “on the virtue of jihad and martyrdom” and worked “with a Muslim law enforcement officer to influence a major terrorism investigation by accessing a classified federal police database and tipping off the suspect”

Other witnesses warned the committee Tuesday that Muslim Brotherhood influence found its way through the federal government and law enforcement.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser stated in his testimony, “The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) are two of those Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups in America.”

He explained, “They have typically generically renounced the use of terror and violence, but they have never taken a public position against the ideology of Political Islam (Islamism) and have as a matter of policy sought to obstruct any emphasis on the role of ‘radical Islam’ and Islamism in radicalization. They both have also been some of the primary antagonists to efforts by law enforcement to understand and mitigate the real stages of radicalization of Muslims in America.”

Jasser noted that CAIR and other similar groups “spearheaded a successful effort to purge the NYPD of their seminal counterterrorism documents endorsed by our American Islamic Leadership Coalition.”

Former Customs & Border Protection Officer Philip Haney talked about how the administration purged records of terrorism investigations from the agency database.

He stated in his testimony, “The threat of Islamic terrorism does not just come from a network of armed organizations such as Hamas and ISIS, who are operating ‘over there’ in the Middle East. In fact, branches of the same global network have been established here in America, and they are operating in plain sight (at least to those of us who have been charged with the duty of protecting our country from threats, both foreign and domestic).”

He went on to say, “The threat we face today – that continues growing, despite the Willful Blindness of those who insist on pretending otherwise – are not the tactical methods of violent extremism, terrorism, or even operative verbs such as Jihad, but rather, the historical and universally recognized Islamic strategic goal of implementing Shariah law everywhere in the world, so that no other form of government (including the U.S. Constitution) is able to oppose its influence over the lives of those who must either submit to its authority, become second-class citizens, or perish.”

Also see:

CAIR: Supporters of Gun Control Bill Are Anti-Muslim

CAIR's Founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (R); National Communications Director and Spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (L). Awad was present at the 1993 secret meeting of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Palestine Committee in Philadelphia that was wiretapped by the FBI. Participants of the meeting discussed how to support Hamas and, in the words of U.S. District Court Judge Solis the “goals, strategies and American perceptions of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (Photo: © Reuters)

CAIR’s Founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (R); National Communications Director and Spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (L). Awad was present at the 1993 secret meeting of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Palestine Committee in Philadelphia that was wiretapped by the FBI. Participants of the meeting discussed how to support Hamas and, in the words of U.S. District Court Judge Solis the “goals, strategies and American perceptions of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (Photo: © Reuters)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, June 26, 2016:

If left-wing politicians thought they were immune from ridiculous accusations of anti-Muslim bigotry by treating the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) with kid gloves, they are in for a surprise.

In declaring its opposition to the latest bi-partisan bill to prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns, the sordid group has accused the Democrats and Republicans of trying to suppress Muslims’ civil liberties.

CAIR is, according to the Justice Department, a front for the U.S.Muslim Brotherhood and has links to Hamas. The Muslim country of the United Arab Emirates, which previously funded CAIR, designatedCAIR as a terrorist organization when it cracked down on Islamist extremism.

Gun control is an intense debate in the United States with reasonable supporters on each side, but CAIR is polluting the political dialogue with (yet again) ridiculous cries of Islamophobia—and this latest round is exceptionally over-the-top.

The Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act of 2016 aims to stop suspected terrorists whose names are on the no-fly list or the “selectee” list for extra scrutiny from buying guns. There are multiple cases of people who are obviously not terrorists who have ended up on the no-fly listand there are legitimate questions about the bill’s compatibility with the U.S. Constitution, but that’s not the respectable dialogue CAIR is promoting.

Rather, CAIR claimed that the bipartisan group of Senators secretly wants the gun control because it only impacts Muslims:

“We oppose the Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act of 2016 because it appears to limit the ban on firearms purchases to American Muslims…”

“It would seem the Senate is willing to only apply constitutional limitations on the American Muslim community, which is disproportionately impacted by federal watch lists.”

Absolutely nothing in the bill would separate the Muslims from the non-Muslims on the terror watch lists so the former could be blocked and the latter be permitted. Much of the negative media attention surrounding the watch lists is from non-Muslims being inappropriately placed on them.

CAIR’s gotten away with the Islamophobia card for so long that they didn’t even bother pairing this propaganda with any semblance of logic.

Speaking of disproportionality, the disproportionate hysteria of CAIR’s rhetoric is plain to see when the actual facts and context are presented.

The broad term of “watch lists” refers to the consolidation of lists within the Terrorist Screening Center. Its database has about one million names—not one million Americans—one million names of individuals around the globe. Out of  a world-wide population of 7.4 billion people, only 5-15,000 names on the list are Americans (although it reached 25,000 citizens and permanent residents in 2013).

According to the FBI, of the more than 23 million background checks made in connection with gun purchases last year, 244 of those checks were on people on the terror watch lists. Over 90% of those on the terror watch list who wanted a gun were allowed to buy it (and presumably did). Only 21 were blocked.

That means 223 suspected terrorists were allowed to buy guns in one year.

Those that were blocked were stopped not because they were on a terror watch list. They were stopped because other regulations got in the way, such as being a convict or because of substance abuse.

The “anti-Muslim” legislation that CAIR is attacking doesn’t even use the entire database. The Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act of 2016uses two: the No-Fly List and the Selectee List (for additional screening). That means about 900,000 foreigners and 2,000 Americans on the terror watch list are still allowed to buy guns under this proposal.

The No-Fly List has 81,000 names. The FBI says only about 1,000 Americans—1,000 out of the total U.S. population of 320 million—are on this list and would be blocked from getting a gun if a proposal like this was adopted.

The Selectee List has 28,000 names. Less than 1,700 are Americans.

For the Terrorist Screening Center, a government agency submits a name and evidence justifying why they believe there is a reasonable suspicion that they are linked to terrorism. The National Counterterrorism Center looks at it and, about 90% of the time, agrees and adds the name.

Names are also frequently removed, at a rate of about 16,500 per year.  The standard for inclusion is high enough that Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was on the list and taken off, despite plenty of evidence he could be a threat.

Names cannot be added on the basis of activity permitted under the First Amendment. And anyone (even a non-citizen) who has experienced difficulty traveling and believe it is because their name is on a watchlist can follow the redress process with the Department of Homeland Security so a review happens.

While this process can take far too long and needs to be fixed, removal is possible. Ask the terror-linked Islamists who have used lawsuits to get themselves removed from the list.

The bill includes a provision that individuals who believe their rights have been violated can appeal to a federal court and, if they win, the government pays their attorney’s fee.

There is understandable concern about the bill’s provision that the government can present secret evidence to the court for security reasons. If the secret evidence is used, the court is responsible for releasing as much information as possible in order to respect due process. Senator Collins’ factsheet says this is done in other criminal proceedings and is not unusual.

While there are logical reasons to oppose the bill, Islamophobia isn’t one of them. Progressives who have looked the other way when CAIR exploits anti-Muslim sentiment by playing the Islamophobia card should learn a lesson from this.

This deceitful attack on the integrity of Senators (including top Democrats) who support this gun control bill is just as unacceptable as the deceitful personal attacks on anti-Islamist voices seen (fairly or unfairly) as conservative.

There’s a common thread between this cry of Islamophobia and

Let this be a wake-up call for more progressives to see CAIR for what it really is: A Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that uses bullying and deception to pollute productive dialogue about anything related to national security, Islamism and anti-Muslim discrimination.

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

39 of the Most Influential Islamist Activists in America

22Islamist Watch, by David Swindle, Jun 25, 2016:

This week the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released yet another version of its “Islamophobia” report, “Confronting Fear,” replete with lists and fancy quantitative analyses of groups CAIR opposes, dividing them into “inner core” and “outer core,” and estimating their incomes.

It’s all very interesting for those of us (the Middle East Forum, in my case) mentioned. But more amusing is that the report also provides a list of 39 Islamists who, CAIR informs us, participated at an “August 2015 strategy session” where they developed the outline of this report and its conceit that we critics of Islamism should be banished like the Ku Klux Klan.

The list of those 39, in fact, gives we critics a handy outline of many of the worst lawful Islamists in the United States of America. Here they are, organized by me into categories and with a few comments:

241CAIR

· Roula Allouch

· Ahmed Al-Shehab

· Nihad Awad

· Zainab Chaudry

· Arlene El-Amin

· Sarwat Husain

· Robert McCaw

· Lori Saroya (the founder of CAIR’s Minnesota chapter, recently promoted to the national level to help grow more local CAIR branches)

· Corey Saylor (the report’s author and CAIR’s person most focused on pushing the meme of “Islamophobia”)

CAIR’s local leadership

· Zahra Billoo, CAIR-San Francisco Bay Area

· Mongi Dhaouadi, CAIR-Connecticut

· Alia Salem, CAIR-Dallas-Fort Worth

· Hassan Shibly, CAIR-Florida

· Imraan Siddiqi, CAIR-Arizona

Islamic Circle of North America

· Naeem Baig

· Zahid Bukhari

Activists

· Umar Ahmed, attorney

· Mohamed Elibiary, Lone Star Intelligence (he brags about his Islamism openly at the top of his Twitter profile bio “MB=ok,ISIS=bad”)

· Maha Hilal, National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms

· Ramah Kudaimi, U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation

· Meira Neggaz, Institute for Social Policy and Understanding

· Linda Sarsour, Arab American Association of New York (Be sure and note this entry on Sarsour, who is developing her own variant of the ideology by heavily blending it with new media narcissism: “Selfie-Islamism”.)

· Lakshmi Sridaran, South Asian Americans Leading Together

Media

· Alex Kronemer, Unity Productions Foundation

· Max Blumenthal, journalist (Nation columnist Eric Alterman claimed his last book “could have been a selection of a hypothetical Hamas Book of the Month Club,” Hillary Clinton’s response to his writing: “A very smart piece – as usual.”)

· Zainab Chaudary, Rethink Media

Religious figures

· Abdul Malik Mujahid, Sound Vision

· Johari Abdul-Malik, Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center

· Omar Suleiman, AlMaghrib Institute (the subject of my previous Islamist Watch blog post, he gave a speech on “Islamophobia and the Koran” at ICNA’s conference last month)

· Yasir Qadhi, AlMaghrib Institute

Academics and educators

· Akbar Ahmed, American University

· Altaf Husain, Howard University

· Debbie Almontaser, educator

· Hatem Bazian, University of California, Berkeley

· John Esposito, Georgetown University

· Jordan Denari, Bridge Initiative

· Muzammil Siddiqi, University of California, Los Angeles

· Sahar Khamis, University of Maryland

The list presents a useful cross-section of many components of the Islamist movement in America today. CAIR stands in front as the de-facto leader due to it possessing the most sophisticated and long-cultivated media outreach network. But it relies on academics for intellectual and tactical guidance, Islamic theologians for validation within the Muslim community, and a broader network of media and activist organizations to get out their messages. While men largely lead the movement, numerous female leaders and activists also play substantive roles, sometimes even surpassing their male colleagues. (Many of the Millennial and Generation-X female leaders rising in CAIR and other Islamist groups are starting to outpace many of the older baby boomer male leaders…)

Also included in the activist coalition are a handful of non-Muslims who have embraced the Islamist ideological program for much the same range of sad reasons that some Americans sympathized with the Soviet Union during the Cold War: some are just duped and naïve, others true believers, and the worst are morally blind cynics and secular nihilists who realize many Islamists have deep pockets.

CAIR’s ‘Islamophobia’ List Is a ‘Hit List,’ Say Critics

Screenshot

Screenshot

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, June 23, 2016:

Americans are being marked for murder whenever their names appear on the annual list of so-called “Islamophobes” posted by the jihad-linked Council on American Islamic Relations, say two Americans on CAIR’s 2016 enemies list. 

“This is a hit list,” said Nonie Darwish, a former Egyptian Muslim, now living in America. CAIR “should be held legally responsible for inciting violence against us,” she said, after citing several Muslims and non-Muslims who have been personally targeted by Muslims sharing CAIR’s Islamic ideology.

“They want to shut us up by putting us in a position of fear,” said Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which is pushing for modernization of Islam in the United States. “Not only does their list put our lives at risk, but it is full of false information [and] they’ve never called us.”

At least two of the people cited in the report have been targeted for murder by jihadis. Pam Geller, who is described by the new report as “Islamophobe Pamela Geller,” has survived two plots attempts because the Muslim attackers were successfully killed by police. Similarly, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim and a former legislator in Holland, has a security detail to protect her from attacks. 

CAIR’s report “is certainly intended to be [incitement],” said David Yerushalmi, a lawyer at the American Freedom Law Center. “But it is not [punishable] incitement under First Amendment principles,” partly because judges requires an “imminent” threat to justify a charge of incitement, he said.

CAIR’s new report is titled “Confronting Fear“, and it was slated for publication June 14. But on June 12, the release was delayed six days because a Muslim murdered 49 Americans in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

The report lists a series of domestic enemies of Islam, its portrays them as mentally ill phobics, and also conflates occasional attacks and vandalism against Muslim people and buildings with various forms of democratic criticism of Islam. For example, comedian Bill Maher is on the list.

The group defines “Islamophobia” as “a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure.”

The problem, say Jasser and Darwish, is that CAIR’s message will reach people who believe that opponents of Islam deserve death. In fact, Pam Geller, a favorite hate-figure at the CAIR, has been the subject of at least two jihad plots. Two gunmen were killed by thefirst attack in May 2015. A second man, who carrying a knife, was killed by FBI officers in Boston in June 2015.

Other critics, such as Robert Spencer, who runs JihadWatch.com, has received myriad death threats from believers in Islam.

Islam’s politicized ‘sharia law’ endorses the murder of Islam’s critics and of ex-Muslims — repeatedly, endlessly, forcefully — and its recommendations are deemed divine commandments by numerous killers and would-be killers.

For example, the Koran — which observant Muslims say is a list of verbatim commands from their deity, Allah — tells Muslims to “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah [penalty tax] willingly while they are humbled.”

Islamic scriptures say that Islam’s reputed founder, Muhammad, personally ordered or supported the death of many enemies, including at 10 critics and poets, who were the pre-modern equivalent of modern journalist and writers — such as the machine-gunned cartoonists at the Paris-based Charlie Hebdo magazine. Traditionalist or orthodox Muslims says Muhammad is a perfect model of behavior and should be emulated by Muslims.

Because of this theological hostility to criticism, “I cannot go to any Islamic majority country — I would be killed on the street, and the killer would be called a hero,” said Darwish.

CAIR is extending those threats into the United States, she said. “The culture of Al Capone is the culture of Islam — when you put up a list of Islamic foes, this is a hit list,” she said.

In Western democracies, where law and religion both condemn violence, people can criticize and be criticized without the intimidating fear of violence, she said. With CAIR’s enemies list, “the difference is that you have a whole Islamic theology behind, the sharia law that [CAIR] support[s], that condemns people to death if they dissent,” she said.

If a journalist [criticizes] Republicans or Democrats, he does not have a whole legal system to condemn him to death. What makes CAIR different is that they support a legal system, they support HAMAS, they support the Muslim Brotherhood, and just by their affiliation and support of sharia law, the show they agree to the death penalty for apostates and blasphemers, and … by making a list for their sharia lovers and supporters, they are making it easy for their followers to find the blasphemers and apostates.

U.S. court documents and news reports show that at least five of CAIR’s people — either board members, employees or former employees — have been jailed or repatriated forvarious financial and terror-related offenses.

Breitbart has also published evidence highlighted by critics showing that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas-based criminal effort to deliver $12 million to the Jew-hating HAMAS jihad group, that CAIR was founded with $490,000 from HAMAS, and that the FBI bans top-level meetings with CAIR officials. “The FBI policy restricting a formal relationship with CAIR remains … [but] does not preclude communication regarding investigative activity or allegations of civil rights violations,” said an Oct. 2015 email from FBI spokesman Christopher Allen.

The United Arab Emirates has included CAIR on its list of Muslim Brotherhood groups. CAIR has posted its defense here.

For Jasser, CAIR’s hate list is also a threat to the many members of his pro-modernity Islamic coalition who don’t want to be linked to anti-Islamic activists. “We are a modern [classic] liberal islam that believes in universal declaration of human rights [and] we reject theocratic islam,” he told Breitbart. “Our brand is about loving Islam and loving America,” he said.

“Our board members are devout Muslims, our families go to the mosque, we are celebrating Ramadan now, and for us to described under ‘Islamophobia’ … is the greatest smear I can think off… and that’s the intention,” Jasser said.

“There’s no doubt that CAIR is all about monopolizing the voice of Islam [in the United States], and the way they prevent any debates is the term ‘Islamophobia’ … they want to prevent any criticism of Islam,” he said. It “is their way of making a blasphemer’s list — they use it as a way to shame anyone who would question the need for reform,” he said.

But CAIR is safe from a lawsuit or criminal charges unless there’s testimony from a whistleblower or an email showing CAIR officials linking their claims with hopes that someone else launches a violent attack, said Yerushalmi.

Racketeering lawsuits likely won’t work either, he said, because the court has restricted their use to criminal gangs and drug-sellers, he said. “I don’t think you get a RICO case unless an individual or a group of individuals who were physically [harmed] or their business were harmed ….[and] where you can show CAIR’s fingerprints,” he said.

CAIR’s press aide, Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment. 

CAIR’s list of “Islamophobic” actions include many normal examples of civic criticism of Islam’s doctrines. For example, the report slams comedian Bill Maher, saying ;

Maher acts as the liberal counterpart to Fox News when it comes to broadbrush attacks on Islam. While discussing Boko Haram’s kidnapping of a large number of female students in 2014, Maher asserted, “There’s no mention here of connecting this to the religion, which is always what I am seeking to do because I think that’s the elephant in the room. And that in the religion at large, women are seen as property, second-class at best, often property.”

Three Tricks Islamists Use to Conceal the Truth about Orlando

tricksMEF, by David M. Swindle
The Daily Wire
June 24, 2016

Hours after 49 innocent people were brutally killed during the Pulse massacre in Orlando, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamist groups were already deploying time-tested tactics to divert attention from the obvious cause of this massacre, a radical form of Islam much like their own. Three bear highlighting: diversion, claiming the terrorist attack had nothing to do with Islam, and publicly smearing Muslim reformers.

In Dallas, the diversion tactic was set into action on social media when Alia Salem, head of CAIR’s Dallas-Fort Worth chapter, attacked the lieutenant governor of Texas, Dan Patrick, for a bible verse he tweeted at 6:00 AM on Sunday, only minutes after the end of the Pulse showdown. Patrick’s tweet featured Galatians 6:7, which states “Do not be deceived; God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.”

Salem seemed to interpret this passage to suggest that those murdered in the club deserved what they received, retweeting the Bible verse with the comment: “The moment when right-wing extremists and Muslim extremists publicly align. #TrueColors #Orlando #StandWithLGBTI.”

CAIR has deployed time-tested tactics to divert attention from the cause of the Orlando massacre.

Patrick later deleted his tweet, explaining that it had been scheduled in advance, before the atrocity had occurred. Despite this, Salem kept her tweet (replacing the vanished Patrick tweet with a screenshot of it).

The exaggeration of rightist anti-Muslim sentiment is a diversion tactic that CAIR, and Salem in particular, often resort to. CAIR regularly asserts that “right-wing” and “anti-government” terrorism is a bigger threat than radical Islam, while Salem won the 2015 CAIR chapter of the year award, largely for her success launching the Ahmed “clock boy” Mohamed media hoax.

And after the San Bernardino terrorist shooting, CAIR’s most prominent local leader, Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush, used a similar method of blame-shifting. He told CNN, “When we support coup leaders in Egypt or other places, when we support dictatorships, oppressive regimes around the world that push people over on the edge, then they become extremists, then they become terrorists. We are partly responsible.”

It is CAIR, the leading and most influential Muslim Brotherhood-founded group operating in this country, that is partly responsible, not the American people. Instead of focusing on uniting Muslims against ISIS and radicalism, CAIR leaders chose to blame Americans and “Islamophobia.”

Instead of seeking to unite Muslims against ISIS, CAIR leaders blamed Americans and ‘Islamophobia.’

The second tactic that CAIR has deployed is making the case that terrorist acts have nothing to do with Islam.

Following the Orlando attack on Sunday, CAIR-Arizona Executive Director Imraan Siddiqi tweeted: “This sick, cowardly act has no justification in any religion or ideology -Anyone who does: The Muslim community & world stands against you.” He later pinned the tweet to the top of his profile.

Siddiqi knows this is not true. He is well aware that religions and ideologies can be used for justifying the murder of gays and lesbians. In fact, it was just three months ago on March 28th when Dr. Farrohk Sekaleshfar’s speech at the Husseini Islamic Center in Sanford, Florida drew protests because in 2013 Sekaleshfar described the killing of gays as an act of love in accordance with Islam: “We have to have that compassion for people. With homosexuals, it’s the same… Out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.”

But is CAIR concerned with casting out Muslims who advocate violence? No, they are more concerned with ridiculing and marginalizing peaceful, patriotic Muslim leaders. CAIR cannot allow other Muslim groups who do not share their Islamist ideology to emerge as competitors.

CAIR’s third tactic is smearing Muslim reformers.

CAIR has sought to ridicule and marginalize peaceful, patriotic Muslim leaders.

Since Siddiqi so loudly proclaimed that no ideology could inspire mass murder, his next move was to stoop to the character defamation of Muslims courageous enough to speak its true name.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, one of the leaders of the Muslim reform movement, wrote that, “Mateen pledged allegiance to #ISIS at standoff. How much more evidence do we need that the enemy’s ideology is: #Islamonationalism #Islamism,” and Siddiqui replied “…and of course look who shows up to throw gasoline on the fire.”

Clearly, Jasser is not the one responsible for fueling hate. Siddiqui and CAIR’s smear campaigns are complete misrepresentations of the truth.

As CAIR increasingly names “Islamophobia” as the primary problem, more and more of its leaders, such as CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid, continue to assert that America is irredeemably racist since its founding. Rather than helping to prevent future attacks, CAIR offers would-be terrorists further reason to wage war against America.

Other countries, like the United Arab Emirates, which named CAIR as a terrorist organization in 2014, are waking up to the game CAIR is playing. So should we.

Until America’s most prominent Muslim organization stops trying to demonize Christian politicians, right-wingers, Muslim reformers, and US foreign policy, Americans will likely fall victim to more of these hate-driven terrorist attacks. Islamist ideology is the problem, and it’s up to Muslims first and foremost to extricate it from their communities and faith.

David M. Swindle is the coordinator of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Café Countersuit Accuses Muslim Women of ‘Civilizational Jihad’

Facebook

Facebook

Breitbart, by Adelle Nazarian, June 24, 2016:

The attorney representing the Muslim owner of a popular Orange County café is countersuing a group of Muslim women who initially sued her business for anti-Muslim discrimination. The counter-suit accuses the group of waging “civilizational jihad” and trespassing.

According to the UK Guardian, David Yerushalmi of the Los Angeles-based American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), the lawyer representing Urth Caffé in Laguna Beach and café owner Jilla Berkman alleged that the initial lawsuit was part of a wider “civilizational jihad” being waged by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which aims “to weaken western civilization”. Further, Yerushalmi reportedly said the women’s discrimination suit was a form of “extortion”, calling the lawyers representing the seven female Muslim plaintiffs “ambulance chasers.”

The seven women, six of whom wore hijabs (a traditional head covering required under Sharia law and in most Muslim countries) claimed that they were asked to leave before they finished eating at the café, and suggested the owner called the police on them due to Islamophobia. However, the restaurant has a stated 45-minute time limit per table and Yerushalmi argued that his client said the women “were loud and abusive to the Urth Caffe employees and refused to give up their table per the stated policy.” Berkman personally authorized one of her employees to call the police on the women.

“That night, as every Friday night, a large number of young people, including a majority of whom are Muslim and of Arab descent, make up the base of Urth Caffe’s customers,” Yerushalmi wrote. “Not surprisingly, many of these customers are women wearing hijabs. None of these other Muslim women were asked to leave.”

Mohammad Tajsar, one of the attorneys representing the Muslim women, had painted the incident as just he latest in a series of hate crimes against Muslims in the area.

Yerushalmi pointed out in the initial case that “the lead plaintiff in the frivolous lawsuit is Sara Farsakh, a college-age activist for Palestinian causes who self-promotes her involvement in radical organizations, at least one of which calls for the destruction of Israel.” He also noted that “the organization behind the scenes organizing this fraudulent lawsuit is CAIR.”

(CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation.)

Yet CAIR’s Executive Director in Los Angeles, Hussam Ayloush, told the Guardian that contrary to Yerushalmi’s allegations, his organization was not involved with the Urth Caffé case. He blasted Yerushalmi in an interview with the Guardian‘s Nicky Woolf, saying “if anyone had any doubts about what happened on that day, those doubts are eliminated by the fact that the owners of Urth Caffé decided to retain David Yerushalmi. There are 1.2 million attorneys in America, and for them to choose the most hateful, the most bigoted attorney, tells a lot about the values that Urth Caffe’s owners hold.”

CAIR has often had a hand in representing Muslims in troubling situations. For example, they helped the families of San Bernardino terrorists Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. a

As for the claims of Islamophobia against Yerushalmi, he issued the following statement to the Guardian:

I represent Muslim Americans, running from jihad and seeking asylum. If you want to say I’m an anti-jihad lawyer, you’re 100% right. Am I anti-Sharia? Yes, I am. Am I anti-Muslim? Not if he doesn’t have a gun in his hand shooting at me.

Follow Adelle Nazarian on Twitter @AdelleNaz

CAIR Hilarity: We Welcome “Significant, Healthy Debates” Among Muslims

hypocrisyIPT News
June 23, 2016

He might have been trying to be ironic. But Corey Saylor seemed to be playing it straight Monday when he claimed that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wants “more empowered voices”in the future to “let the public at large see more of us talking about the full spectrum of views that exist within the Muslim community.”

We could hear the spit-take all the way from Arizona. That’s the home of Zuhdi Jasser, who founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) and the Muslim Reform Movement. Both groups embrace a “separation of mosque and state” and stand against the Islamist victimization agenda pushed by CAIR.

For that, CAIR repeatedly has called Jasser names in attempts to discredit and silence him. It tried to block his appointment to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in 2012 and tried unsuccessfully to have him ousted two years later.

Saylor’s comments about embracing debate came during a news conference to unveil CAIR’s latest report on groups it says are pushing “Islamophobia” in the United States, along with their funders. The report includes the AIFD among organizations “whose primary reason for existence is to promote prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims.”

While simultaneously calling for more empowered Muslim voices, CAIR accuses Jasser, a Muslim, of promoting hatred and prejudice against his faith because he disagrees with CAIR politically. For example, following terrorist attacks like the slaughter at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, or last November’s multi-pronged attacks in Paris, Jasser will talk about the radical Islamist ideology that drives the violence. CAIR, on the other hand, insists it has nothing to do with religion.

Rather than welcoming “the full spectrum of views,” as Saylor claimed, CAIR wants to “marginalize debate,” Jasser said in an interview. “They simply want to continue their sense that Islam has a PR problem, and it’s not a reform issue, that it needs to happen in the separation of mosque and state. The Islamists don’t ever want to recognize they are Islamists or that they do try to collectivize our community into a political movement. Because once they did that, they’d have to recognize that there are diverse voices that reject Islamism and their Islamist platform.”

It happened to him again last week. Jasser spoke in Birmingham, Ala., about curbing Islamist extremism and the terrorism done in its name. “No, it’s not all Islam that’s the problem, but there’s a problem in the house of Islam that needs to be addressed,” Jasser said.

A local television station turned to CAIR and a local mosque for reaction. “They said he’s a part of the problem and is only spreading Islamophobia,” the story said.

CAIR’s report, done in collaboration with the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender, also includes the Investigative Project on Terrorism among 33 “inner core” organizations that, like AIFD, exist to gin up hatred of Muslims and Islam. IPT “claims to investigate the activities and finances of radical terrorist groups, but makes all of Islam culpable,” the report said.

No supporting evidence is provided.

It is a false claim. In fact, IPT frequently cites Muslims who oppose Islamism, ranging from liberal UK reformist Maajid Nawaz to Jasser, an American Navy veteran and physician. But we also have exposed many of CAIR’s skeletons and emphasized its roots in a Hamas-support network in the United States created by the Muslim Brotherhood. We also frequently showcase radicalism exhibited by CAIR officials.

Saylor’s statement about embracing debate echoes a recommendation in CAIR’s formal report: “Empowering a diverse range of legitimate voices to persuasively contribute, particularly in the news media, to the views of Islam and American Muslims within public dialogue.” [Emphasis added.]

CAIR, the statement implies, reserves the right to tell the public which voices qualify as “legitimate.” CAIR’s stated objective, therefore, is at odds with its own definition of how debate can occur.

Saylor’s full statement further exposes the shallow nature of the claim CAIR wants “more empowered voices.”

“Our major holiday, Eid, is a topic of significant debate,” he said Monday. “When is it going to happen – because it’s based on a moon cycle? So if we can have these kind of healthy debates we want all of those voices to be trained and go out and speak to the public at large.”

First, debate is limited to “simple practices of certain dietary requirements, or prayer or calendar issues,” Jasser said. “None of the diversity that they’re talking about is related to core issues of universal human rights.”

Second, CAIR must ensure those engaged in debate are “trained” to participate.

“That’s the hypocrisy,” Jasser said.

When CAIR officials speak of diversity, Jasser said, they’re referring to ethnic/national background. Muslim Americans come from all over the world, from the Middle East and Asia.

“Islam is an idea. It’s not a race,” he said, so true diversity includes different views about the faith and its application in modern life.

“When it comes to intellectual diversity, they’re completely missing in action,” Jasser said.

CAIR equates criticism of scholars or certain Islamist dogma with hate, he said. “They, with self-righteous indignation, refuse to accept the fact that somebody can love the community and love their faith and still be very critical of what is normatively felt to be Islamic law. That is un-American. Imagine somebody telling some of them that they are not good Americans because they disagree with this policy or that policy.”

CAIR largely has ignored the Muslim Reform Movement and has not commented on the specific principles its members enumerated.

The Muslim Reform Movement issued a public Declaration of its principles. Among them:

We support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by United Nations member states in 1948.

We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam. Facing the threat of terrorism, intolerance, and social injustice in the name of Islam, we have reflected on how we can transform our communities based on three principles: peace, human rights and secular governance.

We are for secular governance, democracy and liberty. We are against political movements in the name of religion. We separate mosque and state. We are loyal to the nations in which we live. We reject the idea of the Islamic state. There is no need for an Islamic caliphate. We oppose institutionalized sharia. Sharia is manmade.

To be true to its own call, CAIR needs to embrace these ideals or publicly explain why it will not. That might lead to an outcome Saylor said with a straight face that he wants – “More empowered voices” and “significant, healthy debates going on among ourselves every year, every day.”

Now that would be a news conference worth watching.

Group That Issued “Islamophobia” Report Faces Trial for Defrauding Innocent Muslims

500b0106-e6dd-4c46-a1c9-848b7ecbcd72

Town Hall, by Kyle Shideler, June 23, 2016:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a self-described civil rights organization that federal authorities say is directly linked to the terrorist group Hamas, will face a jury trial over allegations it committed fraud against the very people the organization claims to help.

The case, Rene Arturo Lopez, et al v. Council On American Islamic Relations Action Network revolves around the actions of Morris Days, who served as a Civil Rights Manager for CAIR’s Virginia chapter. Days, who represented himself as a lawyer despite not having a law degree, took money from individuals seeking civil rights assistance but never provided appropriate legal services.

An earlier trial court granted CAIR’s request for summary judgment, but that claim was overturned on appeal, with the Appellate court ruling that there is sufficient evidence for a jury trial in the case.

The lawsuit alleges that when the CAIR National office found out about Day’s scam they eventually fired him, but instead of coming clean to the victims and law enforcement, CAIR made efforts to conceal Day’s activities.

Key to the case is the degree to which individual CAIR chapters, such as the now defunct CAIR Virginia chapter, are only loosely aligned affiliates, or tightly controlled subordinates to CAIR National. This is significant because the FBI prohibits agents from dealing with CAIR National, due to the documented ties of its founders, Omar Ahmad and current executive director Nihad Awad to Hamas.

The plaintiffs, consisting of three Muslim Americans and two non-Muslims who all sought civil rights assistance from CAIR, allege that CAIR both profited from Day’s deception, using Day’s false credentials as a lawyer on advertisements and keeping national records of civil rights cases worked by CAIR chapters at the national office. They also allege CAIR National sought to cover up the fraud, by seizing records and shuttering the CAIR Virginia office after evidence of Day’s deception came to light.

CAIR Virginia was previously known for legal entanglements. Former Virginia CAIR director, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, whom the Treasury Department says was a major Al Qaeda financer, was convicted and sentenced to more than 20 years in prison for a plot to kill the then Saudi Crown Prince.

This is not the first time Muslim Americans have accused CAIR of interfering with their efforts to receive American justice. In 2009, members of the Somali community in Minneapolis led a protest against CAIR, alleging the group was actively silencing parents who sought FBI assistance in finding their sons, whom they feared had been recruited by terrorist organization Al Shabaab.

Critics say CAIR has long intimidated the Muslim community to avoid speaking out, including creating posters urging Muslims not to contact or speak to law enforcement, and even putting out bounties for the identifies of Muslim informants working with federal authorities.

The announcement that CAIR will face a trial by jury for it’s own alleged mistreatment of Muslim Americans comes at a bad time for the group, which recently released a report on Islamophobia. CAIR was already forced to cancel a press conference on the report following the jihadist terror attack in Orlando that killed 49 at a gay nightclub.

CAIR attempted to use the Orlando attack to make direct linkages between homophobia and Islamophobia, which itself led to criticism of anti-gay remarks made by Islamic scholars and Muslim leaders associated with CAIR.

CAIR’s report has already come under fire for lead author Hatem Bazian’s role in the American Muslims for Palestine. AMP has been identified by the Anti-Defamation League as having “provided a platform for anti-Semitism,” and the group’s ties to Hamas terror finance and involvement in Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaigns were the focus of recent testimony before a Congressional committee. Bazian’s accusations of Islamophobia extend even to the (almost entirely Muslim) Egyptian army, currently engaged in a struggle against jihadists in the Sinai.

There is an obvious irony with CAIR releasing a report on Islamophobia at a time the group itself will face justice for alleged defrauding Muslims and other minorities. A very public jury trial may serve as a reminder that CAIR serves only it’s own interests, and not that of the wider Muslim American community. Meanwhile the allegations of cover up and collusion make clear that CAIR, and it’s ravings about Islamophobia networks, are driven more by an institutional paranoia born of its roots in terror finance conspiracy than by facts.