Robert Spencer: Is It “Islamophobic” to Call 9/11 Hijackers “Islamic Terrorists”?

rs092316Published on Sep 27, 2016 by JihadWatchVideo

Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses two recent protests by Muslims against the labeling of the 9/11 hijackers as Islamic terrorists, and shows how they’re part of ongoing efforts to intimidate Americans into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror.

When Are Islamic Terrorists Not Islamic Terrorists?

jd

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, Sept. 7, 2016:

“Islamophobia” is running rampant in the heretofore bucolic town of Oswego, New York, and Muslims are worried. Are marauding bands of “right-wing extremists” pulling hijabs off little old Muslim ladies and daubing swastikas on the walls of mosques? No, the “Islamophobia” in question appears on Oswego’s new 9/11 memorial monument, which dares to refer to the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 jihad terror attacks as “Islamic terrorists.” In this age of Obama, Oswego should have known better!

WWMT reported last Thursday that the monument was “causing controversy,” as “the Islamic Organization of the Southern Tier worries the wording could encourage hatred toward Muslims living in the area, painting all Muslims with the same brush….The Islamic group has asked that the monument just read, ‘terrorists’ or even ‘Al-Qaeda terrorists.’”

Calling the 9/11 hijackers “Islamic terrorists” is “painting all Muslims with the same brush”? This is an oft-used and tired talking point. How does identifying the motivating ideology of the 9/11 attackers paint all Muslims with the same brush? Does referring to the Italian mafia amount to calling all Italians mafiosi? Does referring to German Nazis mean that one is calling all Germans National Socialists?

This is just an attempt to deflect attention away from the ideology of the 9/11 hijackers, and to keep people ignorant and complacent regarding the fact that those hijackers were working from Islamic principles that are embedded within the Islamic texts that are read and studied and taught by the Islamic Organization of the Southern Tier.

And it isn’t by any means the first time. In April 2014, Muslim groups protested against the screening of a seven-minute film entitled “The Rise of Al Qaeda” at the National September 11 Memorial Museum in New York City. Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, huffed: “The screening of this film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum. Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”

This was an extraordinary complaint in light of the fact that the film in no way conflated al-Qaeda with Muslims as a whole. All it did was use the words “jihad” and “Islamist.” Nonetheless, Akbar Ahmed, a noted Islamic scholar at American University, insisted that many visitors to the museum were “simply going to say Islamist means Muslims, jihadist means Muslims. The terrorists need to be condemned and remembered for what they did. But when you associate their religion with what they did, then you are automatically including, by association, one and a half billion people who had nothing to do with these actions and who ultimately the U.S. would not want to unnecessarily alienate.”

That the terrorists themselves were the ones who associated their religion with what they did, not the 9/11 Memorial Museum, Ahmed did not address, any more than did the Islamic Organization of the Southern Tier when it was complaining about the 9/11 monument in Oswego. (Atta reminded himself in a note found in his suitcase: “Increase your mention of God’s name. The best mention is reading the Qur’an. All scholars agreed to this. It is enough for us, that [the Qur’an] is the word of the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Who we are about to meet.”) Ultimately, the museum stood firm about the film, but it did remove the term “Islamic terrorism” from its website. What Oswego will do remains to be seen.

These episodes are illuminating: even to note the obvious fact that the 9/11 hijackers identified themselves as Muslims and explained that they were doing what they did because of Islam is now supposedly offensive to other Muslims, and so must not be done. Even to take notice of the hijackers’ Islamic self-identification is unacceptable evidence of “Islamophobia.” This is as ludicrous as it is self-defeating. That it has become official administration policy in dealing with the jihad threat, and enough of a cultural norm that the Islamic Organization of the Southern Tier wasn’t too embarrassed to protest against a simple truth being told in Oswego, is evidence of how severe the crisis we are in really is.

Stephen Coughlin: Yes, the Truth May Constitute Hate Speech

truth-is-the-new-hate-speechGates of Vienna, by  Baron Bodissey, August 27, 2016:

On August 21, the American Freedom Alliance sponsored a conference in Los Angeles, “Islam and Western Civilization: Can they Coexist?” One of the speakers was Major (ret.) Stephen Coughlin, the author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

Note: In his talk, Maj. Coughlin refers to OSCE events that he attended. The response by CSP and ICLA to the use of the term “Islamophobia” at OSCE is here. The video of his encounter with the globalist enforcers of the OSCE narrative is here.

Many thanks to Henrik Clausen for recording, and to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

***

Here is a longer presentation given recently at an Act! For America event in San Antonio, TX :

Watson Video: The Truth About Islamophobia

maxresdefault (5)Truth Revolt, Aug. 22, 2016:

Check out another entertaining short video from Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson. This time Watson eviscerates the Muslim Brotherhood concept Islamophobia, which the unholy alliance of leftists and Islamists have used to bludgeon the West into cowed silence. But Watson’s not having it. Enjoy.

Think Tank Report Merges Racism With Criticism of Islam To Achieve ‘Islamophobia Crisis’ Numbers

BBC-Demos-3-640x480Breitbart, by Liam Deacon, Aug. 19, 2016:

The BBC has seized upon a report by a left-wing think tank, which openly conflates criticism of Islam with racism, to claim “islamophobia” on social media has “peaked” and imply more censorship is needed.

Demos, whose Chief Executive is Claudia Wood, who joined the think tank from Tony Blair’s strategy unit, developed a method of supposedly automatically identifying Tweets that are “hateful, derogatory, and anti-Islamic”.

They claimed that over 5,000 “Islamophobic” tweets are sent every day and that the number “peaked” after a number of Islamist terror attacks rocked Europe this July.

“Over July, we identified 215,247 Tweets, sent in English and from around the world… On average, this is 289 per hour, or 6,943 per day”, the report claims.

“Islamophobic tweets ‘peaked in July’”, claimed a BBC article and extended segment on the BBC News Channel, after they were given “exclusive access” the report which they published alongside a series of emotive and subjective interviews with “offended” and aggrieved British Muslims.

These “possibly socially problematic and damaging” online utterances were said to “contain one of a number of specified keywords”.

However, the National Secular Society (NSS) labelled the report “an accidental case-study in why we should all stop using the meaningless and sinister word ‘Islamophobia’”, and identified some serious methodological flaws.

Benjamin Jones, the communications officer of the NSS, explained in a blog post:

“In their report Demos selects some tweets it included in the study, which they presumably think are good examples of their methodology in action. A tweet stating “Morocco deletes a whole section of the Koran from school curriculum as it’s full of jihad incitement and violence The Religion of peace” is treated the same way as a tweet saying “I fucking hate pakis” in their methodology.

“One of these tweets criticises an idea. The other is racist. One describes and mocks a belief system, the other (verbally) attacks people. Demos’ methodology treats both of these tweets in the same way.

“I have read (an English translation of) the Koran. Saying it contains violence (it does) is in no way comparable to using racist language.

“This is an appalling conflation, which creates a false moral equivalence between racism and criticising a set of ideas.

“Another tweet Demos offer as an example reads: “Priest killed in #Normandy today by a Radical Islamic Terrorist yet Hillary says that Islam is peaceful! 1274 attacks this year=peaceful? Ok.”

“Is asserting that Islam doesn’t seem to be conducive to peace really ‘Islamophobic’? The BBC apes Demos’ dangerous line, referring not to anti-Muslim, but explicitly to “anti-Islamic” tweets as ‘Islamophobic’.

“… Wanting to jail homosexuals might also be “socially problematic”, but pointing out that half of British Muslims do want to criminalise homosexuality and most think it is immoral would have me labelled an ‘Islamophobe’ under Demos’ methodology.”

The report’s authors claim that “we believe it is important that the principle of internet freedom should be maintained… However, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic and misogynistic abuse can curtail freedom…”

In the methodology section of their paper, they write that “An Islamophobic expression was defined as the illegitimate and prejudicial dislike of Muslims because of their faith”, but conceded that, “Islamophobia can take on a very large number of different forms, and its identification, especially within Twitter research, was often challenging.”

“Ultimately, this research comes down to the judgement of the researchers involved”, they add.

Screen-Shot-2016-08-19-at-13.56.03

According to NSS, Demos clearly failed to successfully identify bigotry, and by conflating it with legitimate criticism Islam and Islamism, they and the BBC have damaged people’s ability to speak freely on the subject.

An example of this conflation came within the BBC’s own report, when a man interrupted one of the Muslim interviewees to say that “there is no sharia law here” and “we’re losing our freedom of speech”.

The man was immediately castigated by the Muslim interviewee, and the BBC ran a second article titled: “BBC Islamophobia discussion interrupted by Islamophobia”, implying that stating Sharia law isn’t part of UK law is itself Islamophobic.

Convictions for crimes under Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003, a law increasingly used to prosecute “internet trolls”, have increased ten-fold in a decade.

Earlier this week, the office of London’s first Muslim mayor announced they had secured millions of pounds to fund a police “online hate crime hub” to work in “partnership with social media providers” to criminalise “trolls” who “target… individuals and communities.”

And in May this year, the EU announced that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft had “committed” to working more closely with them and national governments and “their law enforcement agencies” to help “criminalise” perceived “illegal hate speech” online.

Also see:

Al Qaeda’s 20-year plan to violently impose Sharia on the West in stages is just entering Phase Six (2016-2020) of “Total Confrontation”. This timeline, hatched well before 1996, was known to the West for ten years.

The other death-to-the-West Islamic timeline implemented ten years ago by a highly powerful and influential organization — the world’s second largest intergovernmental organization (next to the United Nations) and largest Islamic organization — is also building momentum in a less violent but parallel way.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the largest voting bloc at the UN (comprising the world’s 57 Islamic states) proposed a Ten-Year Programme of Action (at a two-day summit in Mecca concluding on Dec.9th) to internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam or so-called Islamophobia, culminates this week (December 8th and 9th).

Criminalizing Islamophobia[1] was the OIC’s major initiative since 1999, at which time it began pushing for a blasphemy-against-Islam UN resolution. That resolution finally passed in 2011 as UN Resolution 16/18 — the underpadding of which is to establish a global Islamic hegemony or caliphate that subjugates the entire world to Sharia. UN Resolution 16/18 and the hate-speech laws that it gave rise to simply facilitate the Islamization of the West.

Both timelines are influencing, guiding, and mobilizing jihadists worldwide to launch attacks that are gaining momentum throughout the West. All-out war has begun with more and more Islamic terrorist attacks launching worldwide, including now in the U.S.

Saudi-Sponsored Report Grossly Inflates U.S. Muslim Hate Crimes

bin talalCounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, Aug. 19, 2016:

A recently released academic report claiming the candidacy of GOP presidential nod Donald Trump has led to a mini-holocaust against Muslims in America is riddled with errors and exaggerations. Yet Muslim pressure groups are actively pushing it out to the media to support the notion that Muslims are the ones under violent attack.

Sponsored by the Saudi prince who tried to bribe then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani into saying U.S. foreign policy was to blame for 9/11, the “special report” — “When Islamophobia Turns Violent: The 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections” — is designed to gin up sympathy for Muslims and shut down terrorism investigations in the Muslim community, as well as the presidential debate over Muslim immigration.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council — which was founded by known members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement — is distributing the report by Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in an email alert to members. MPAC’s president, Salam al-Marayati, who signed the emailed letter, was once kicked off the National Commission on Terrorism after his defense of terrorist acts and the groups who carry them out was revealed.

“During the course of 2015, there were approximately 174 reported incidents of anti-Muslim violence and vandalism, including: 12 murders; 29 physical assaults; 50 threats against persons or institutions; 54 acts of vandalism or destruction of property; 8 arsons; and 9 shootings or bombings, among other incidents,” the 73-page report claims. “The number of incidents in 2015 is also higher than the total number of anti-Muslim hate crimes reported in 2014: 154.”

Sounds terrible. But it’s not what it seems.

The only accurate part of the statement is that there were, in fact, 154 confirmed anti-Muslim incidents in 2014, according to FBI crime tables. That’s down from 135 cases in 2013 and 130 in 2012, and a far cry from the total number in 2001, when the FBI investigated 481 hate crimes against Muslims.

Even that high number isn’t as bad as it seems. Of the 554 victims of anti-Islamic crimes reported in 2001 — a year that included the murder of almost 3,000 Americans by 19 Muslim hijackers — more than half (296) were victims not of aggravated assault or even simple assault but of “intimidation.”

According to the Justice Department, hate crimes against Muslims have fallen dramatically since 9/11; and if the trend holds, more than likely there will be another drop in 2015, Georgetown’s alarmism notwithstanding.

Its tally of 174 hate crimes last year is unofficial, unconfirmed and, as it turns out, grossly inflated. Its source is not the FBI, which won’t release actual data for 2015 hate crimes until November, but the media. “These incidents were reported by local and national news outlets,” it admits in a footnote in the report.

But Georgetown doesn’t even get that right. A review of press accounts of incidents cited as anti-Muslim hate crimes reveal that in several cases the authors of the Georgetown report misrepresented what was reported by the media, claiming as hates crimes cases that were never investigated as hate crimes.

In fact, some of the Muslims the authors claim were murdered because of their religion were in fact killed during a robbery. Hatred for their faith had nothing to do with it.

Read more

Will the Media Ever Talk About Muslims’ ‘Christianophobia’?

IMG_8985

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 16, 2016:

It’s nearly impossible to hear an Islamist group like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) speak for an extended period of time without uttering the term ‘Islamophobia’ – a term they invented that ultimately seeks to silence criticism of Islamism.

The Islamists have a key de facto alliance with much of the media and political left (who despise the political goals of the Christian right) and help the Islamist cause by underreporting if not covering at all stories of Muslim persecution of other religious groups such as Christians.

In fact, after watching much of the media one typically gets the impression that Muslims are being persecuted by non-Muslims a lot more than vice versa.

For instance, despite not yet knowing the motive behind the recent slaughter of two Muslims named Maulama Akonjee and Thara Uddin in Queens, New York, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio was quick to insinuate ‘Islamophobia’ by saying “we do know that our Muslim communities are in the perpetual crosshairs of bigotry[,]” thus spreading the Muslim victimhood narrative.

Furthermore, stressing alleged Muslim persecution by non-Muslims deceptively helps switch the cause and effect relationship that happens in the process of Islamic radicalization. For example, instead of Muslim radicalization taking place because of the prevalence of radical Islamic ideologies that are tolerated within the Islamic community, radicalization occurs because of the alleged persecution of Muslims by those outside the community spurred by an irrational hatred of Muslims or ‘Islamophobia.’ Efforts to push this false narrative help to conceal the actual bigotry toward Christians within the Muslim community. This type of ‘Christianophobia’ is apparent throughout the Islamic world. Let’s take a look at some of this Christian persecution in the West.

A Christian pastor named Mahin Mousapour reveals just how disrespected Christians are treated by Muslims living in migrant housing. Mousapour gives a glimpse into this contempt by stating:

“Toys of Christian children are being destroyed, Christian asylum seekers are told not only to wash their dishes after eating but also that they must clean the entire kitchen as it would otherwise be ‘unclean’. Many Muslim asylum seekers call all Christians unclean. Church services are held in secret, bibles and crucifixes have to be hidden[.]”

We have already seen from an Open Doors survey how 75% of Christian refugees in Germany living in “temporary accommodations” admitted to being persecuted repeatedly. There’s also persecution that ends in death such as in 2015 when a boat loaded with Muslim migrants sailing from Libya to Italy had twelve Christians thrown overboard, murdering them. One couldn’t imagine the outrage if it were Christians systematically murdering Muslims.

Muslim persecution against Christians is also occurring in the U.S. At St. Andrew Orthodox Church in Riverside, California a car pulled up and blasted “Allahu Akbar!” through a bullhorn several times, terrorizing the attendees. Fox News gives a list of some other incidents of threats against Christians and their houses of worship:

In February, Khial Abu-Rayyan, 21, of Dearborn Heights, Mich., was arrested after he told an undercover FBI agent he was preparing to “shoot up” a major church near his home on behalf of ISIS. A month earlier, the Rev. Roger Spradlin of Valley Baptist Church – one of the biggest congregations in Bakersfield, Calif. – told attendees that they had received a threat written in Arabic.

“Undercover officers were then placed during worship services,” Valley Baptist spokesman Dave Kalahar said. “The FBI continues to investigate along with the local task force.”

Last September, an Islamic man clad in combat gear was charged with making a terrorist threat after entering Corinth Missionary Baptist Church, in Bullard, Tex., and claiming that God had instructed him to kill Christians and “other infidels.” A year earlier, police were called to Saint Bartholomew’s Catholic Church in Columbus, Ind., after the house of worship was vandalized with the word “Infidels!” along with a Koranic verse sanctioning death for nonbelievers. Similar graffiti was found that same night at nearby Lakeview Church of Christ and East Columbus Christian Church.

Why would Muslims commit such evils acts against Christians? While the different cases each have their own particularities and nuances, one cannot deny the Islamic supremacism in Islam that causes some Muslims to view and treat non-Muslims with derision. It’s no surprise that this supremacism is inherent in the Quran, some passages include:

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures. –Quran 98:6

Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved… –Quran 8:55

O you who have believed, do not take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allah against yourselves a clear case? –Quran 4:144

O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous. –Quran 9:123

As revealed one doesn’t have to discuss ISIS or Boko Haram to see that Christians are facing persecution by Muslims in the West. Some churches are taking the initiative to either hire security or increase it, especially with the revelation of an ISIS hit list that allegedly has 15,000 U.S. Christians on it. Yet, one will not typically find stories like these at least not in any great detail in much of a media that seeks to protect the reputation of the Muslim community.

How much longer will the political left and liberal media continue to help Islamists like CAIR, who sympathize with jihadists, by pushing their duplicitous ‘Islamophobia’ narrative, while largely ignoring the persecution of Christians by Muslims? We will find out.

Robert Spencer on CAIR’s inaccurate and deceitful “Islamophobia” report

No-phobia-here-923111-e13714506791751-620x370 (1)Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses the inaccuracies and falsehoods in the report on “Islamophobia” recently issued by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Muslim-American Olympian Criticizes her Country

muslimolympics_1470557862401_3289875_ver1.0_640_360

How Ibtihaj Muhammad describes life in America for Muslims.

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, Aug. 9, 2016:

A Muslim-American woman competing in the 2016 Olympics in Rio, Ibtihaj Muhammad, made history as the first American Olympic participant to wear a hijab while competing. The fencer won her first round, then lost in a second round. She is due to take part in a team competition later on during the Olympics. However, with all the media attention she has received to date for wearing the hijab and speaking out as a Muslim advocate against her country’s treatment of Muslims as well as against Donald Trump, you would think she had already won the gold.

Rather than focus on the fact that she was representing America as part of Team USA, Ms. Muhammad chose to distance herself from her fellow Americans. Before the competition even began, she complained about not feeling safe in America because she was a Muslim. She has been whining about how she feels threatened because of her faith, and has politicized the Olympic Games with derogatory comments regarding Donald Trump’s candidacy for president.

Considering that “anti-Semitic crimes accounted for roughly 60 percent of religious hate crimes last year,” according to a 2015 Washington Post report, and “anti-Muslim crimes now make up about 13 percent of religiously-motivated hate crimes,” the Jewish-American Olympic competitors would have had more reason to speak out about not feeling safe in America. However, they are in Rio to compete for the gold on behalf of their country, not to trash it.

“I wish that, not just my life, but the lives of Muslims all over the world were a little bit easier, particularly in the United States,” Ms. Muhammad was quoted by the Associated Press as saying after arriving in Rio for the competition.  (Emphasis added.) “I’m hoping that with my first-time appearance as a member of Team USA here at the Olympics, I’m hoping that the rhetoric around the Muslim community will change.”

This is a woman who had the opportunity to meet with President Obama and even offer the First Lady a fencing lesson. Indeed, Ibtihaj Muhammad has lived the American dream. She graduated from a top school, Duke University, where she attended on a scholarship. To fund her ambitions to become a world class fencer, she worked as a substitute teacher and fencing coach. She also founded her own clothing line Louella. And she has gotten some big name corporate endorsements. She missed qualifying for the 2012 Olympics, but continued working hard to make the 2016 team, which, to her credit, she succeeded in doing.

Explaining her primary motivation for going after a spot on the 2016 team, Ibtihaj Muhammad focused on her attachment to the Muslim community, not simply on the honor to represent America. She said, “When I heard that there had never been a Muslim woman on the U.S. team to wear the hijab, that is when I made this conscious decision to go for 2016.” She added: “I am excited to represent not just myself, my family and my country – but also the greater Muslim community.”

 If Ms. Muhammad were truly interested in representing “the greater Muslim community,” she should use her celebrity status to speak out against the atrocious living conditions of women in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Muslim majority countries.

Did Ms. Muhammad by chance have the opportunity to speak with any of the very few female competitors from Saudi Arabia, for example? That devout Muslim country discriminates against its own female population, all under the banner of Islam’s sharia law. It is allowing just four women athletes to compete in the Olympics this year, after having received an ultimatum from Olympic authorities in 2012. At home in Saudi Arabia, women are not even allowed to attend national team competitions as spectators, let alone participate in any tournaments or state organized sports leagues of their own. “Our society can be very conservative,” said Prince Fahad bin Jalawi al-Saud, a consultant to the Saudi Olympic Committee. “It has a hard time accepting that women can compete in sports.”

More generally, there is strict gender segregation in Saudi Arabia. And merely wearing a hijab head cover would not be enough to keep a woman out of trouble for dressing too immodestly.

In commenting on the recent spate of Islamic terrorism, Ms. Muhammad blamed it on an “unhealthy situation” caused by “(M)isunderstanding of religion, of what different societies need in order to thrive.” It would appear that Ms. Muhammad has a basic misunderstanding of the doctrines in her own religion that have fueled violent jihad around the world.

As an example of political correctness run amok, there was mounting pressure on Michael Phelps, who was elected by his teammates to serve as flag bearer in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, to decline the honor in favor of Ibtihaj Muhammad, who came in second in the voting. Various media outlets called for Phelps to yield. Perhaps the most ridiculous article was a CNN op-ed piece addressed to Phelps by W. Kamau Bell, in which the author says that “America has enough tall, successful, rich white guys hogging the spotlight” and that “Muhammad carrying the flag would be nearly a one-stop inclusion shop.”

The Olympics should be all about sports competition for the top prize based on merit. It should not be about religious faiths or domestic politics. Phelps, the most decorated Olympian of all time, earned the honor to carry the flag on behalf of the United States. Muhammad has not earned that honor, unless being Muslim, wearing a hijab while competing and trashing her country constitute the new standard of “excellence.”

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.

Also see:

A Multi-Culti Thomas Jefferson

506px-Liberty_Bell_2008

Islamists and progressives both want the Founders to have said something different than what they really said.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, July 16, 2016:

When reflecting on the rich history of the city of Philadelphia, one might think of William Penn, Benjamin Franklin, the Liberty Bell, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.  The timeless principles of freedom and liberty speak not only to the Philadelphian but also more broadly to the American.  Because of Philadelphia’s significance and contribution to America, its history has become a major target of revisionism.  Despite having different motivations, Liberal-progressives and Islamists both share the common goal of turning our founding fathers into advocates of multiculturalism.

For Islamists it’s all about making the founding fathers supportive of Islam, and of course they mean political Islam.  Philadelphia City Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr. is helping create that narrative by hosting an event in Philadelphia’s City Hall July 26, with Denise Spellberg, author of the controversial book titled Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders.  David F. Forte, Cleveland State University professor of law, lays out two important themes asserted in the book that reveal Spellberg’s prejudices: 

1) that the founders’ references to “imaginary Muslims” led them to include other minorities, such as Jews, Catholic Christians, and Deists, as full citizens, and 2) that America is now in the grip of “Islamophobia,” and many Americans are attempting to “disenfranchise” Muslims from their rights as full citizens.

The ‘Islamophobia’ campaign has propagated a lot of nonsense, from ‘Islamophobia’accelerating global warming to the rewriting of a more ‘inclusive’ American history as Spellberg’s book seems to indicate.  To think that Jefferson and the founding fathers included political Islam when they championed religious liberty is ridiculous.  Religious liberty and Islamic law are incompatible because Islamic law prohibits and punishes beliefs that are in opposition to Islam.  This multiculturalist narrative Spellberg is trying to sell is similar to that advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood linked Congressman Keith Ellison (first Muslim Congressman).  Ellison was the one who took his oath of office by swearing in on the Quran owned by Thomas Jefferson, and tries to insinuate that because Jefferson owned a Quran it helped mold his views on religious liberty and toleration.  A 2007 Seattle Times article reports Ellison’s take on swearing in on the Quran:

“It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran,” Ellison said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

“A visionary like Thomas Jefferson was not afraid of a different belief system,” Ellison said. “This just shows that religious tolerance is the bedrock of our country, and religious differences are nothing to be afraid of.”

In reality, Jefferson not only had some unflattering things to say about Islam but also got a taste of radical Islam from a conversation with the Ambassador of Tripoli at the time:

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Besides Philadelphia City Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr. who are some of the other supporters of the event with Spellberg in Philadelphia?  Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is one of the backers of the event. The Muslim Brotherhood in North America is dedicated to “destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.”  CAIR has even given Spellberg an awardthat epitomizes her work that’s being used for the Islamist cause:

I-CAIR Faith in Freedom Award from the Council American-Islamic Relations, Cleveland, Ohio Chapter, “For promoting a better understanding of the history of religious freedom in America and for writing Muslims back into our nation’s founding narrative through the extraordinary and illuminating scholarly work, Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders,” May 11, 2014.

Militant Islam Monitor.org provides information about some of the other event sponsors such as:

…They include Emerge Pac, the Universal Muslim Business Association, Masjid Masjidullah and ICPIC. The Islamic Cultural Preservation And Information Council which receives funding from the PA Council on the Arts among others.http://icpic.co/. EmergePac is a subsidiary of EmergeUSA which is headed by stealth Islamist lawyer Khurrum Wahid.”Emerge USA, despite its patriotic sounding name, has an extremely radical agenda based on terrorism and bigotry shrouded in the guise of political advocacy. The main individual behind Emerge USA is Khurrum Wahid, a South Florida attorney who has built his name on representing high profile terrorists. They include members of al-Qaeda and financiers of the Taliban. According to the Miami New Times, Wahid himself was placed on a federal terrorist watch list in 2011.

The contact for the event is Imam Salaam Muhsin, who recently spoke at CAIR-Philadelphia’s Interfaith Press Conference after the Orlando massacre.  The sponsors have a long list of Islamist ties to say the least.  On the event/luncheon flyer it is also noted that it occurs during the week of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, advertising for their liberal fan base.  This progressive/Islamist alliance is working together to reinterpret our nation’s founding fathers (and founding documents) in order to change the American narrative to fit their multiculturalist vision for the U.S.  For the Islamists it’s all about using multiculturalism to insert political Islam/Sharia into society under the guise of religious liberty.

Bill Maher Rejects Claims of Brexit ‘Xenophobia’: Is It ‘Phobia’ If You Have Something to Fear?

No-phobia-here-923111-e13714506791751-620x370

Fox News Insider, June 26, 2016:

On “Real Time” on Friday, Bill Maher weighed in on the argument that the U.K.’s withdrawal from the European Union was, in part, a “xenophobic” reaction to a wave of Muslim immigration into Europe.

“I hear a lot of talk today about xenophobia,” Maher said. “Is it really phobia if you have something to be afraid of?”

Maher explained that many Muslims hold beliefs that do not conform with Western values, pointing to a recent study that found 52 percent of British Muslims believe being gay should be illegal.

He added that many Muslims see women as second-class citizens and treat them as such.

Maher said that even most people who disagree with him on this issue acknowledge that Islam needs a reformation.

Unfortunately, he said, moderate Muslims are afraid to speak out because of “violent intimidation.”

“And every time somebody says ‘Islamophobia,’ it gives the people who are intimidating cover.”

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.

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.”

You’ll Never Guess How CAIR’s New Report Defines ‘Islamophobia’

cair-terrorists-uae-IP

It’s is so far-out, steeped in campus Marxist radicalism and Critical Theory jargon, that it must be read to be believed.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, June 22, 2016:

On the heels of the deadly jihadist attack in Orlando that killed 49, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)– with the help of the UC Berkeley Center for Race and Gender– released a national strategy report on fighting Islamophobia in 2016. The report’s definition of Islamophobia is so far-out, so steeped in campus Marxist radicalism and Critical Theory jargon, that it actually overshadows the errors in the rest of the 140-page document.  It must be read to be believed:

Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social, and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve “civilizational rehab” of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise). Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended.

It’s an indication that, for Islamists, talk of Islamophobia is not aimed at helping people who have been unjustly harassed or discriminated against because of their Islamic identities, but a deliberate attempt to silence any kind of criticism of the concrete laws that constitute Islam. CAIR allowed the Center for Race and Gender to define “Islamophobia”– certainly an unusual thing for a concept as closely tied to an organization’s mission as CAIR’s. The Islamist pressure group didn’t offer a competing definition, so we can only assume that its inclusion in the report amounts to an acceptance or ratification.

Today, Texas-based national security and political warfare analyst David Reaboi dissected their definition of Islamophobia on Twitter (@DaveReaboi).

In the definition, there’s an intentional effort to turn ‘Islamophobia’ into a race issue (ex. “prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure” and “Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure”) rather than about the doctrine of Islam. This is done because CAIR finds it easier to stigmatize its opposition rather than discussing actual ideas. CAIR even alludes to this out in a section labeled “Lessons from the Klan” where it talks about how the “progressive erosion of the Klan’s social acceptability serves as a model for CAIR’s strategy toward contemporary Islamophobic groups.” So, essentially a group that wants to discuss the threat of violent jihad could get branded as racist, comparable with the KKK. How moronic right? It’s interesting their definition of ‘Islamophobia’ includes a “real Muslim threat” when phobias typically deal with irrational fears. It’s another way to discredit even justifiable reasons to hold this particular ‘phobia.’

CAIR’s strategy is changing from an “opposition-centric” focus which concentrates on “anti-Islam” groups to a more “environment-centric” approach which tries to get at the “societal acceptance of Islamophobic sentiment.” The stated goal of the strategy is to come to “a shared American understanding of Islam in which being Muslim carries a positive connotation and Islam has an equal place among many faiths in America’s pluralistic society.” However, we know from disclosed documents the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates such as CAIR, who put together this report, are seeking a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated” (An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group). This does not sound like a group who just wants Islam to have “an equal place among many faiths in America’s pluralistic society[,]” but a group who wants to undermine our U.S. Constitution and its governing laws to the dictates of Islamic law.

One of CAIR’s main tactics for trying to persuade the public that ‘Islamophobia’ is on the rise is to talk about the topic of hate crimes against Muslims. This subject was brought up in section six of the national strategy report. Not to diminish the individuals who are unjustly targeted for their Islamic faith, but CAIR exaggerates the prevalence of hate crimes against Muslims. For instance, CAIR cited a Washington Post article which concludes hate crimes against Muslims are “roughly five times higher than the pre-9/11 rate.” The 2015 article based upon FBI stats also says anti-Muslim crimes comprise “…about 13 percent of religiously-motivated hate crimes, and 2 percent of all hate crimes in general[,]”while “…Jews are consistently targeted for their faith more often than members of any other religious group, and that anti-Semitic crimes accounted for roughly 60 percent of religious hate crimes…” That puts the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in perspective. It should also benoted that “…religiously motivated murders are rare. too. There are no such killings listed in the FBI’s database for 2013. Most hate crimes involve assault, intimidation or vandalism.” It’s important to mention that there’s a long list of alleged anti-Muslim hate crimes which have been debunked as false, such as:

Dec. 27, 2014 update: …Immediately after vandals attacked the Islamic Cultural Center of Fresno on Christmas Day, Police Chief Jerry Dyer labeled it a “hate crime.” But the suspect arrested turns out to be Asif Mohammad Khan, 28, a Muslim who had attended the mosque and acted out in response to being bullied by mosque members.

Dec. 30, 2015 update: A similar incident took place in Houston: CAIR called for investigation into “a possible bias motive” for a fire on Christmas Day at a storefront mosque in Savoy Plaza in the southwest part of the city, insinuating Donald Trump was responsible for the arson. In fact, surveillance tapes showed, the perpetrator was a Muslim who regularly attended the mosque, one Gary Nathaniel Moore, 37, who was promptly arrested.

What CAIR wants to do is make anti-Muslim sentiment look like a bigger problem than the actual threat of terrorism committed in the name of Islam. This tactic draws attention away from radical Islam. The websitewww.thereligionofpeace.com shows over 28,600 fatal terror attacks since 9/11 conducted by Islamic terrorists. Just the number of terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since the start of Ramadan 2016 (as of Day 16) is over 120 attacks, leaving over 930 dead. One can see radical Islam poses a far more significant threat than ‘Islamophobia,’ especially for Americans in the wake of the San Bernardino and Orlando shootings.

CAIR’s shift in strategy entails attacking ‘Islamophobia’ in a way that changes the alleged anti-Muslim environment rather than just counter one’s opposition. We have seen the deceptive nature behind CAIR’s strategy and how they not only propagate the narrative of widespread ‘Islamophobia,’ but also shift the focus from Islamic terrorism to Muslim victimization. One way is appealing to hate crime statistics, but when taken into context, actually hurt their point by showing anti-Jewish hate as a much greater problem in the U.S. than anti-Muslim hate. Even if anti-Muslim hate crimes were the highest of any religious group, why should we take such statistics at face value from a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate (CAIR) who is listed as a terrorist organization by the UAE?

CAIR is not an organization to trust; it doesn’t represent moderate Muslims.

***

Also see:

Meet the ‘Islamophobes’

islamophobia banner

Conservative Review, by Nate Madden, June 20, 2016:

What do talk show host Bill Maher, author and Eagle Forum Founder Phyllis Schlafley and Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin all have in common? They’re all Islamophobes, according to a new report released by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) on Tuesday.

“Confronting Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact on the U.S. 2013-2015” is a joint project of CAIR and the U.C. Berkeley Center for Race and Gender meant to outline the funding streams for, and cast aspersions on, what it calls “The U.S. Islamophobe Network.” This list boasts 33 “inner core” and 41 “outer core” groups, while offering “a four-point strategy designed to achieve a shared American understanding of Islam in which being Muslim carries a positive connotation.”

CAIR’s “inner core” consists of “[g]roups whose primary purpose is to promote prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims and whose work regularly demonstrates Islamophobic themes,” while the “outer core” is made up of “[g]roups whose primary purpose does not appear to include promoting prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims, but whose work regularly demonstrates or supports Islamophobic themes.”

Essentially, it’s a hit job on anyone who has ever dared say anything negative about radical Islam and has ever been willing to speak up against it. Such groups included on CAIR’s Islamophobe list include:

ACT! For America, American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Center for the Study of Political Islam, Clarion Project, David Horowitz Freedom Center, Florida Family Association (Fla.), Investigative Project on Terrorism, Jihad Watch, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Tennessee Freedom Coalition (Tenn.), Adelson Family Foundation, American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), American Family Association, American Islamic Leadership Coalition, Christian Broadcasting Network, Concerned Women for America, Eagle, the Glenn Beck Program, HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, the Mark Levin Show, National Review, Really Big Coloring Books, Inc, The Washington Times, and WND.

Again, these are some. Not all.

But let’s not forget who’s throwing these labels around here.

We’re talking about CAIR. This is a group affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation case, in which the DOJ investigated and prosecuted a conspiracy to direct funding to Hamas. Ironically, or maybe not, this is also the same group that President Obama confers with on his “countering violent extremism” agenda.

Minor details, right?

So how does CAIR suggest that America combat these wretched hatemongers? Treat them like the Ku Klux Klan, of course. The report reads:

The Ku Klux Klan is the oldest of America’s hate groups, and in 1925 the white supremacist group could boast four million members and enormous political influence and popular support. Today, however, their numbers and resources are vastly diminished, their bigoted views are socially and politically marginalized, and they are virtually irrelevant within the national landscape. This progressive erosion of the Klan’s social acceptability serves as a model for CAIR’s strategy toward contemporary Islamophobic groups.

So not only are critics of Jihadism to be labeled Islamophobes en masse, but they should also be delegitimized with the same scrutiny of the Ku Klux Klan.

From a tactical perspective, the move is brilliant. This is the same thing that the social left used to silence and browbeat social conservatives for years on every single issue even remotely related to marriage and the family, and it all began with the Southern Poverty Law Center similarly designating every pro-traditional marriage organization in existence as a “hate group.”

Once that happened, it wasn’t too long before it no longer mattered to many how compelling the argument for conjugal, stable, permanent families was and still is. Now, if you hold the position, you’re labeled a hate-mongering bigot and are not to be trusted.

CAIR’s “network” looks similar in scope. It doesn’t matter that many of the groups listed in this report have clearly made the distinction between peaceful interpretations of Islam that don’t seek to subvert our way of life and Jihadism. They’ve been branded; Saul Alinsky would be proud.

“Let’s nudge ourselves from our Religion of Peace’ slumbers for a moment and consider Muslim Brotherhood ideology,” writes Andrew McCarthy, author of “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” in National Review. According to McCarthy, a key memo obtained by the FBI outlines how the Muslim Brotherhood’s “American tentacles,” like CAIR, envision themselves as waging:

[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 so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

However, the Muslim Brotherhood and its international affiliates aren’t like Al Qaeda (the Jihadist equivalent of Che Guevara) or ISIS (who operate more like Mao Zedong, both analogies courtesy of Dr. Sebastian Gorka). Rather, McCarthy explains, its vision of a “ground-up revolution” is one “in which the use of force plays a part but is just one aspect of a multi-faceted aggression arsenal.”

What’s one way to make this happen? Completely rid yourself of legitimate criticism. And if we’ve learned anything from the marriage debate that culminated in last year’s Obergefell decision, or even recent battles over Religious Freedom laws, the best way to do that is smear, smear, and smear.

Nate Madden is a Staff Writer for Conservative Review, focusing on religion and culture. He previously served as the Director of Policy Relations for the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative. A John Jay Fellow, Citadel Parliamentary Fellow and National Journalism Center alumnus, Nate has previously written for World Magazine, The Washington Times, Catholic News Service, Patheos, Ethika Politika, and The Christian Post. Follow him @NateMadden_IV.

Also see: