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:

Will CAIR Condemn the Anti-Gay Imams It Associates with and Promotes?

siraj
The media never once asked a critical question about CAIR’s support for the people who espouse the doctrine that makes this violence possible.

CounterJihad, by Kyle Shideler · @ShidelerK | June 14, 2016

The Council on American Islamic Relations held a press conference on Sunday following the deadly jihadist terror attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, where the group attempted to link homophobia with the group’s preferred talking point “Islamophobia,” labeling them, “interconnected systems of oppression.”

If that were so, perhaps it would be time to ask why Hamas-linked CAIR has yet to address the homophobia within the Muslim community, and, perhaps more importantly, among the imams which CAIR routinely works with and honors?

CAIR has repeatedly maintained close and deliberate ties to numerous individuals known for preaching virulently anti-gay themes.

Muzammil Siddiqi: Supporting Suicide Attacks and Death Penalty for Homosexuals

During the last mass casualty attack conducted by a jihadist in San Bernardino, CAIR publicly highlighted its close association with Islamic Shura Council of Southern California leader Muzammil Siddiqi. Siddiqi has publicly supported the death penalty for homosexuals in Muslim countries. Homosexuals face the death penalty or extrajudicial killings in numerous Islamic countries, including Iran which has reportedly killed 4-6,000 homosexuals or suspected homosexuals. Siddiqi has also been caught issuing statements in support of suicide attacks, saying Muslims who died “for justice” receive “the highest position” in Heaven. Police killed Orlando shooter Omar Mateen during his attack against the Pulse Nightclub.

 Siraj Wahhaj: Wanted to Storm a Gay-Friendly Mosque in Canada

Frequent CAIR fundraiser Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, published an audiotape entitled “Don’t Go Near Zina.” Zina is the Arabic term for types of sexual intercourse forbidden under Shariah law. In the tape Wahhaj condemns homosexuality and references reports of a mosque being opened in Canada for homosexual Muslims. Wahhaj openly calls on the audience to physically go with him to Toronto to shut down the mosque.

Taha Alwani: Issued a Fatwa Calling For “Earthly Punishments” for Homosexuals

Another example is CAIR’s praise upon the passing of Muslim scholar Taha Alwani, a man once raided by the federal law enforcement for suspected terror finance. CAIR issued a press release saying Alwani’s works would “benefit Muslims around the world for generations to come.” Alwani, in his position as member of the Fiqh Council of North America, published a 2003 fatwa condemning a reported mosque for gay Muslims. In his fatwa Alwani refers to the smiting of Sodom and Gomorrah, calls homosexuality “abominable”, and reinforcing Islamic doctrines calling for “earthly punishments” for homosexuals:

It is true that some of the scholars disagreed with these punishments not because of doubt that these actions constitute a crime, but because of a lack of divine textual stipulation for a worldly punishment. But the actions of the Prophet’s Companions do indicate that in fact this crime has a worldly punishment, to be carried out by those in authority among the Muslims.

Alwani goes on to cite for support of his statement a hadith referring to Caliph AbuBakr, who ordered a homosexual to be burned alive. Alwani also ordered Muslims to “take precautions” against homosexual corruption.

Omar Suleiman: Homosexuality a “Repugnant” “Disease”

Another CAIR associated Imam with a record of anti-gay rhetoric is Omar Suleiman. Suleiman, who has routinely provided videosoffering fundraising support for CAIR chapters, including in Florida. Suleiman was noted in the Daily Mail for calling homosexuality “repugnant” “a disease” which will destroy Muslim children if Muslims don’t take action to oppose it.

Jamal Badawi: Homosexuality a Sign of the End Times

Consider CAIR-Canada Board Member Jamal Badawi. On his website Badawi, regarded by many as an accomplished Islamic scholar, refers to the spread of homosexuality as a sign of the “End Times.” In another video presentation Badawi argued thathomosexuality cannot be genetic, reasoning that if it was God would not have destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Suhaib Webb: Slammed Wearers of “Effeminate” Clothing

Popular Imam Suhaib Webb is a frequent keynote speaker for CAIR fundraisers. Webb is also known forattending a fundraiser with Anwar Awlaki, the Al Qaeda cleric whose videos Omar Mateen reportedly watched. Webb also publicly condemned those who wear “effeminate” clothing, including skinny jeans, and told a D.C. metro area Muslim audience to oppose gay marriage, condemned American values, and urged practitioners to spread Islam’s message “by any means necessary…”

Abu Taubah: Railed Against “F**gots,” Non-Muslims and American Society

Finally, consider Abu Taubah, the anti-gay imam who reportedly was Omar Mateen’s teacher, and who has previously been identified as assisting jihadists joining terror groups abroad. While Abu Taubah was imprisoned he repeatedly sought out CAIR’s assistance, which CAIR provided, arranging a meeting between Abu Taubah and CAIR Florida Director Hassan Shibly, while Taubah was imprisoned.

Untitled

Upon Abu Taubah’s release, CAIR immediately took a victory lap, holding a press conference with the Imam’s family.

At what point will CAIR be asked about their repeated ties to virulently anti-gay Imams and Islamic preachers, and its support for Muslims scholars who continue to promote a doctrine calling for homosexuals to be killed?

At their recent press conference CAIR was able to cynically take advantage of the slaughter of innocent people, and the media never once asked a critical question about its support for the very people who espouse the doctrine that makes this violence possible. That needs to change.

Oops: Islamist Leader Boasts ‘Thank God for Islamophobia’ at Conference

Islamist Watch, by David M. Swindle  •  Jun 6, 2016

Islamists know from decades of success that deception is their most effective strategy, but nowadays many have grown egos so massive they just can’t help but brag loudly about the ideological con job they’re pulling on American Muslims.

Over Memorial Day weekend the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) put on its annual conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The ICNA Twitter retweeted quotes and photos from throughout the three day event. (For more background on ICNA’s leadership and radical record seehere.)

The statements in the three tweets photographed and quoted below come from the keynote session speech “Quran and Islamophobia” given by Shaykh Omar Suleiman, a member of ICNA’s Shariah Council:

“Alhamdulilah [Praise be to God] for Islamophobia! … Thank God for Islamophobia that causes us to grow and develop a strong Islamic identity… You can persecute Muslims but you can’t stop the idealogy[sic].”

[Note: On Twitter, tweets appear with the newest on top, so to read chronologically start at the bottom.]

This is the largest annual Muslim gathering in the country, these statements were at a speech by one of the organization’s leaders and they were tweeted out to over 56,000 followers.

Imagine if the leading black and Jewish organizations offered up similar sentiments at their yearly gatherings and then broadcast them out for the world to see. “Thank God for racism that causes us to grow and develop a strong black identity!” “Thank God for antisemitism that causes us to grow and develop a strong Jewish identity!”

What is the real agenda behind organizations like ICNA pushing “Islamophobia”? Now we have an open admission: to fuel the rise of an ideology built around a “strong Islamic identity.”

Also see:

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) is a part of the US Muslim Brotherhood and considered to be closely tied to the Jamaat-e-Islami organization of Southeast Asia, itself allied with the Global Muslim Brotherhood. ICNA is particularly close to the Muslim American Society and the two organizations have been holding joint conferences in recent years. The MAS was identified in a Hudson Institute report authored by the GMBDW editor as a part of the US Muslim Brotherhood and closely tied to the Egyptian organization.

Canadian Marc Lebuis on the business of Islamophobia

3187833668

Center For Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, June 1, 2016:

Welcome to Secure Freedom Radio. This is Frank Gaffney, your host and guide for what I think of as an intelligence briefing on the war for the free world. We don’t often get good news in that war these days, I’m sorry to say, but I am very pleased to be able to present a little bit, at least for the moment. And to call back to our microphones for that purpose a man I’ve come to admire greatly and who has been indispensable in bringing about this bit of good news. He is Marc LeBuis. He is the founder and director of Point de Bascule, or Tipping Point, a web-based, investigative magazine that you can find online. It’s based in Montreal, Canada. And this bit of good news comes there, from Canada, from Quebec province, specifically. And to talk a little bit about it, I’m delighted to say congratulations and welcome, Marc LeBuis.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, thank you. And thank you for having me, Frank.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

So tell us about this development. Bill 59 is something that you’ve been warning about for some time. You’ve been working hard against. And I think as a result, in no small measure of your efforts, it’s come undone. Talk a little bit about what happened.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, Bill 59, of course, is technically a censorship bill. And the current government in place, it’s called the Quebec liberal government, gave in after a lot of a backlash, the backlash against the bill would not die down. Now the entire civil society, I could say almost with just a couple of exceptions, have been opposing this bill systematically for months. It’s been almost a year that it’s been very actively pushed forward. And then, there’s the opposition to the bill, PQ Representative Agnes Maltais who stood technically almost alone, she is doing what I think in English we call a filibuster where she would systematically oppose the bill in what she called intelligent opposition. So out of sixty to eighty hours of debate over the bill, only one and a half articles out of something like twenty-five were read. They were systematically asking question. And Agnes Maltais basically got it. There’s quite a few politicians, they may participate in these types of debate, but sometimes they don’t really get it. Well, she did get it. She expressed a couple of weeks ago that she felt that this was, out of about twenty years of [UNCLEAR] as a politician, she felt that this was the most important and significant debate that Quebec has ever faced in terms of the danger that it was for democracy.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

This is so important. And Marc, I want to make sure while we acknowledge and express appreciation for this sort of Horatius at the Bridge in the parliament, Agnes Maltais, your own role in helping get that civil society engaged on this issue, understanding the implications of this censorship in the name of not offending Muslims was incalculably important. And you may not want to boast about it, but let me just say thank you to you specifically. I was struck by the minister of justice in Quebec, Stephanie Vallee, indicating that while this kind of regulation of so-called hate speech is adopted elsewhere, she said, quote, we’re not ready for that, unquote. So it doesn’t necessarily mean this is a commutation of sentence, maybe it’s just a stay of execution. But in that regard, Marc, talk if you would a little bit about how things seems to be developing in terms of trying to classify as racism so-called Islamophobia and what implications it might have.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, there is – there is what we call now, what we’re noticing, a form of axis, I mean, Islamophobia bills or efforts or lobbies trying to push Islamophobia. We know that it’s happening all over the West. But there is a particular axis right now developing which we call the Paris-Brussels-Quebec-Ottawa Axis. There is now an organisation in – based out of Paris, led by a man by the name of Marwan Muhammad who’s very close to Tariq Ramadan, close also to organisations that are linked with Yusuf al-Qaradawi out of Qatar. And he’s also very, very close to not just Muslim Brotherhood operatives but also other Salafist-based Islamist operatives who are known to have radical views in France. And they’re working together with, for example, recently they have met very, very powerful lobbies out of Canada called the CAIR Canada or the new name, the NCCM, that they’re using, and they seem to be coordinating a lot of effort to push institutions and policies inside of Canada to be able to qualify or equate Islamophobia as a racism and this would be happening. What that means, it’s even worse than having a bill that would do censorship. It would take on the current laws on racism and just basically hook onto them or piggyback on them and then would be able to have the same effect in order to kill free speech, kill criticism of anything that’s related to Islamist activities in Canada and maybe in Europe.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Now I know, Marc LeBuis, that you have been accused of being an Islamophobe, I certainly have, many of those we work with have. Just dissect for us this concept that this is in fact some sort of racism. There is no race. Islam is practiced by people of many different races. And what I think we all are concentrating on is not even Islam itself as much as it is the political, military, legal doctrine of shariah that its Islamic supremacist adherents are trying to impose on all of us. And if we were to accede to this idea that this is somehow a racist activity, where would a country like Canada find itself? Where would, you know, people like you who are warning about what’s coming if they’re not careful?

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, there definitely would be, even more difficult than it is now to be able to name the threat that we’re facing, specifically the jihadist threat. It would be extremely difficult to – notions of infiltration, and I’m talking about serious infiltration inside government agencies, when we would try to expose how certain lobbies, associations, or individuals are trying to penetrate a political party, a police force, or even a legal institution. It recalls –

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Or the government itself for that matter.

MARC LeBUIS:

Or the government itself. There’s this leader called Jamal Badawi out of Canada, and I think he’s very known in the United States, who basically, in an interview in the early 2000s said that we should – Muslims should penetrate government institutions, specifically become judges so they can use their own personal discretion in order to avoid applying legal references that will go against shariah. So he’s encouraging Muslims to enter and penetrate and infiltrate. Become lawyers, police officers, and any type of form of positions of power that allows them to have a certain amount of discretionary power.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

As you look at this effort on the part of the Islamists, these Islamic supremacists, to promote shariah, when you find yourself confronting these pressures, Marc, just as the takeaway from your efforts on Bill 59, what should all of us learn from it and take heart from?

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, on our part, I think having the information well-structured, intelligently put together, was able to help some of the people that are pushing these policies, some politicians that could understand what’s happening, to be able to be well-equipped to articulate a defence and even, sometimes, even be on the offensive. So documenting what these organisations are doing, quoting them, knowing exactly – and also, exactly like you said, the memorandum is a perfect example. There are so many plans out there to demonstrate that there is a coordinated effort to disrupt our civilisation, to change laws. There are plans out there that clearly express that.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Marc, we have to leave it at that for the moment, but there’s so much more to talk about. I look forward to doing so with you and just want to say, hats off to you and all of those in Canada who have fought this important fight. We’ll talk with you again very soon. Next up, Kyle Shideler of the Center for Security Policy joins us. We’ll talk about how this problem is manifesting itself here thanks to our so-called friends, the Saudis, among others. That and more straight ahead.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Assimilation is an Immigrant’s Duty

Capture-5By Counter Jihad, April 12, 2016:

In a recent editorial, a survivor of the Charlie Hebdo massacre praised French secularism against Islam.  You might have thought that the fact that he took a bullet while his friends were being killed in the name of Islam might buy him some credibility.  At least, you might think it would buy him some understanding for having a relatively negative view of the Islamic faith.  Nope!  Not, at least, from the mainstream media.

M. G. Opera at the Federalist calls for a more reasonable discussion.

Asking immigrants to assimilate doesn’t mean white-washing their culture and religion, asking them not to wear the hijab, or demanding that they eat pork. But it does mean asking them to accept, to some degree, the culture of the country to which they have willingly moved. These are things like women’s rights, tolerance, free speech, or criticism of religion. It also means not having to apologize for having a culture of one’s own. This is the point that Michel Houellebecq made in his recent novel, “Submission.”

Of course, the French government does demand that Muslims not wear Islamic headscarves to schools or in public offices — not just the hijab, but the more invasive niqab or burqa as well.  This is part of a general law in favor of secular values and against ostentatious display of religious values of any kind.  The law was originally aimed at Catholics in the early 20th century, but affects Muslims and others as well.  Is that reasonable?

In Ireland, an Islamic leader has himself proposed that visiting preachers from the Muslim world be required to sign a statement similar to the one Opera proposes.

“I believe foreign speakers should be asked to sign a statement in which they condemn Osama bin Laden, ISIS and all extremist militants, call for tolerance and respect for all people including the LGBT community, respect democracy and the permissibility to vote in western countries,” [Dr. Umar al Qadri] said.

Now, ‘tolerance and respect’ for the LGBT community is plausibly a violation of sharia law.  There is a legitimate question about what the LGBT community has a right to demand of any religious person who has theological reservations about their lifestyle.  Certainly in any Western state they have a right to demand physical safety, no matter what sharia says.

On the other hand, religious liberty laws are being debated around the country backed by religious groups of many stripes.  Muslim citizens have a right to have their opinions heard in these debates, the same as citizens of any other faith.  Still, it is interesting to note that the left-leaning corporations like PayPal and Apple will boycott North Carolina over its law protecting womens’ bathrooms from being used by men, but do business in Malaysia where all sexual minorities are in danger of prosecution.

Ultimately the ground rules have to be enforced evenly.  If you want to say that France goes too far against Muslims, you have to say that they go too far against Catholics.  If you want to say that Muslims should be free to exercise prejudice against gays and lesbians, you have to say that Baptists are free to do so also.  We surely must say that sharia’s calls for violence are immoral, illegal, and forbidden no matter what.  Don’t we say that about every other faith?  Don’t we say that, no matter what, a religion’s laws cannot command adherents to kill?

Also see:

When an editorial dismisses as “xenophobes” those who blame terrorism on immigration, and is then taken as conclusive proof of racism, you know something has gone terribly wrong. Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine whose offices were attacked last year by gunmen offended by its cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, has once again been denounced for “Islamophobia” and racism. The alleged offense came in an editorial that challenged the role of religion in society, and that is assumed by its critics to say that all Muslims are complicit in terrorism. Nowhere in the French original by the cartoonist Laurent “Riss” Sourisseau, nor in its rather more awkward English translation, does it say that. Rather, it is an anguished defense of French secularism, tinged by bitterness in a man who was shot in the shoulder while watching his colleagues die. Far from attacking all Muslims — an assertion that assumes all Muslims are the same — it takes aim at the growing power of religious conservativism. It calls out society’s failure to question this for fear of being branded an “Islamophobe.” It blames our silence for creating an atmosphere of fear without which terrorism cannot succeed. That silence has left the field open to the far right and produced a fractured, anxious society more inclined to react emotionally than rationally to acts of terrorism. Unwittingly proving the point made in the editorial, Charlie Hebdo’s critics have loudly condemned it for “Islamophobia” and racism, silencing the issues it raised with a willful or ignorant distortion of what it said. It is a grotesque parody that could be ignored if the stakes were not so high.

Creator of “Islamophobia”: I Got Everything Wrong

unnamed (39)

By Counter Jihad, April 12, 2016:

Twenty-three percent of British Muslims support the introduction of sharia law to replace the laws crafted by Parliament, according to a new study in the UK. The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, is helping to present the study as a way of making up for having gotten “almost everything wrong”during his tenure in government.  While heading the commission he led the formation of an official report that created and popularized the term “Islamophobia” as a way of stigmatizing any criticism of Islam or of mass Muslim immigration.

Now, he admits he was wrong about everything.

An ICM poll released to the Times, in Britain, ahead of the broadcast reveals:

• One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house

• 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband

• 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife

• 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal

• 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament

The documentary will portray the U.K.’s Muslims as a “nation within a nation” that has its own geography and values.

His comments ought to improve the debate over mass immigration, at least.  Since the 1997 report he commissioned, concern about large-scale Muslim immigration has been treated as if it were literally a psychological disorder.  A “phobia” is a groundless, irrational fear that ought to be trained out of a person by aversion therapy or some other treatment.  It is not in any way a concern to be taken seriously.  It is simply a disorder that must be corrected.

Now we learn that those who were raising these concerns were right all along.  The fear that the massive importation of Muslims would create significant changes in British culture turns out to be perfectly well-grounded.  The suggestion that it would create a growing bloc of voters who wanted to repeal the unwritten British constitution in favor of sharia law was not a part of a ‘phobia’ at all.  It was simply true.

Phillips also acknowledges that it is not the general run of British society, but the Muslims themselves, who are possessed of sexism and racism.  Speaking of the child-rape scandals that have plagued England’s cities with large Muslim communities, Phillips wrote:  “The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim communities.”  (Emphasis added.)

Now he is trying to fix his mistakes.  His proposals include the very things this site and others suggest as obvious, common-sense steps:  “halting the growth of sharia courts,” watching mosques with extremist funding, and an end to avoiding criticism of Islamic law and communities in return for votes.  If Britain is to survive, it has to reclaim its soul.

Video: Robert Spencer explains the “Islamophobia” scam

olJihad  Watch, by Robert Spencer, April 11, 2016:

Here is the first part of my new video series, The Basics of Islam, an introduction to many of the most important aspects of the struggle against the global jihad. This one is about “Islamophobia” and the Islamic jihad against the freedom of speech.

UK Equalities Chief Who Popularised The Term ‘Islamophobia’ Admits: ‘I Thought Muslims Would Blend into Britain… I Should Have Known Better’

Bradford, United Kingdom – Getty

Bradford, United Kingdom – Getty

Breitbart, by Raheem Kassam, April 10, 2016:

The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West.

Phillips, a former elected member of the Labour Party who served as the Chairman of the EHRC from 2003-2012 will present “What British Muslims Really Think” on Channel 4 on Wednesday. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals: 

  • One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;
  • 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband;
  • 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife;
  • 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
  • 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament.

Writing in the Times on the issue, Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.”

Phillips commissioned “the Runnymede report” into Britain and Islamophobia in 1997 which, according to both Phillips himself and academics across the country, popularised the phrase which has now become synonymous with any criticism – legitimate or not – of Islam or Muslims.

Durham University’s Anthropology Journal noted in 2007: “It has been a decade since the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia was established, a Commission that through its 1997 report, “Islamophobia: a challenge for us all” (“the Runnymede report”) not only raised an awareness of the growing reality of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic hostility in Britain, but also marked the onset of what might be described as ‘the first decade of Islamophobia’. In doing so, the Runnymede report propelled the word ‘Islamophobia’ into the everyday common parlance and discourses of both the public and political spaces.”

Phillips says his new data shows “a chasm” opening between Muslims and non-Muslims on fundamental issues such as marriage, relations between men and women, schooling, freedom of expression and even the validity of violence in defence of religion. He notes – echoing an article on Breitbart London just two weeks ago which reveals a growing disparity between older and younger Muslims in Britain – that “the gaps between Muslim and non-Muslim youngsters are nearly as large as those between their elders”.

And while he is cautious to note that many Muslims in Britain are grateful to be here, and do identify with role models such as Hussain and Farah, there is a widening gap in society with many Muslims segregating themselves.

“It’s not as though we couldn’t have seen this coming. But we’ve repeatedly failed to spot the warning signs,” he admits.

“Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.”

His comments will come as a blow to those who continue to attack elements in British society who are concerned about Muslim immigration and integration, and in fact may even go some way to shoring up comments made by U.S. Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz seeking to slow down or pause the rate of Muslim immigration into the West.

“We estimated that the Muslim population of the UK would be approaching 2 [million] by 2020. We underestimated by nearly a million. We predicted that the most lethal threat to Muslims would come from racial attacks and social exclusion. We completely failed to foresee the urban conflicts of 2001 that ravaged our northern cities. And of course we didn’t dream of 9/11 and the atrocities in Madrid, Paris, Istanbul, Brussels and London.”

“For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.”

And Mr. Phillips even acknowledges that the mass sexual grooming and rape scandals that are plaguing heavily Muslim populated towns across Britain are because of Muslim – not ‘Asian’ – men. He writes: “The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim communities” – in a nod to those who have long protested this to be the case in the face of political, media, and even police cover ups.

Even left wing columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown told him: “[W]e [liberal Muslims] are a dying breed — in 10 years there will be very few of us left unless something really important is done.”

Phillips comments: “Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it. They won’t.”

And indeed he lays the blame at the feet of the liberal, metropolitan elite, media classes: “Oddly, the biggest obstacles we now face in addressing the growth of this nation-within-a-nation are not created by British Muslims themselves. Many of our (distinctly un-diverse) elite political and media classes simply refuse to acknowledge the truth. Any undesirable behaviours are attributed to poverty and alienation. Backing for violent extremism must be the fault of the Americans. Oppression of women is a cultural trait that will fade with time, nothing to do with the true face of Islam.”

“Even when confronted with the growing pile of evidence to the contrary, and the angst of the liberal minority of British Muslims, clever, important people still cling to the patronising certainty that British Muslims will, over time, come to see that “our” ways are better.”

In terms of solutions, Mr. Phillips opines on “halting the growth of sharia courts and placing them under regulation” ensuring that school governance never falls into the hands of a single-minority group, “ensuring mosques that receive a steady flow of funds from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia, however disguised, are forced to reduce their dependency on Wahhabi patronage” and an end to the “silence-for-votes understanding between local politicians and Muslim leaders — the sort of Pontius Pilate deal that had such catastrophic outcomes in Rotherham and Rochdale”.

Mr. Phillips’s comments echo those of the Czech president, and research from across Europe that revealed attitudes amongst Muslims on the continent have hardened. The younger the Muslim, the more likely they are to hold hard-line views, one recent study found.

What British Muslims Really Think is on Channel 4 at 10pm on Wednesday

Also see:

How Islamists Are Slowly Desensitizing Europe And America

Photo Erica Simone / Shutterstock.com

Photo Erica Simone / Shutterstock.com


The Federalist, by M.G. Oprea, April 8, 2016:

Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine whose offices Islamists attacked in 2015, published an editorial recently titled “How Did We Get Here?” that has raised some eyebrows. In it, they ask how Europe has become where European-born Muslims have attacked the hearts of Paris and Brussels. Their answer has proved distasteful to many on the Left.

The editorial has been harshly criticized and the magazine accused of racism and xenophobia. The Washington Post says Charlie Hebdo blames extremism on individual Muslims—the veiled woman on the street, the man selling kebabs. There’s some truth to this accusation, and to the extent that there is, Charlie Hebdo is wrong. But this, and other critiques, miss the larger point of the article, which is to demonstrate the gradual and quotidian way in which criticizing Islam has been silenced.

It’s worth quoting Charlie Hebdo at length:

In reality, the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale. Our noses are endlessly rubbed in the rubble of Brussels airport and in the flickering candles amongst the bouquets of flowers on the pavements. All the while, no one notices what’s going on in Saint-German-en-Laye. Last week, Sciences-Po* welcomed Tariq Ramadan. He’s a teacher, so it’s not inappropriate. He came to speak of his specialist subject, Islam, which is also his religion…

No matter, Tariq Ramadan has done nothing wrong. He will never do anything wrong. He lectures about Islam, he writes about Islam, he broadcasts about Islam. He puts himself forward as a man of dialogue, someone open to a debate. A debate about secularism which, according to him, needs to adapt itself to the new place taken by religion in Western democracy. A secularism and a democracy which must also accept those traditions imported by minority communities. Nothing bad in that. Tariq Ramadan is never going to grab a Kalashnikov with which to shoot journalists at an editorial meeting. Nor will he ever cook up a bomb to be used in an airport concourse. Others will be doing all that kind of stuff. It will not be his role. His task, under cover of debate, is to dissuade people from criticising his religion in any way. The political science students who listened to him last week will, once they have become journalists or local officials, not even dare to write nor say anything negative about Islam. The little dent in their secularism made that day will bear fruit in a fear of criticising lest they appear Islamophobic. That is Tariq Ramadan’s task.

The Charlie Hebdo editorial correctly points out that in Europe the dominant liberal culture has pounded into us that we must adapt to Muslims who come to our country, and never ask them to adapt to any of our ways. Doing so would be colonialist and wrong. It’s a double standard, of course. As the welcoming countries, Europeans must suppress their own culture and ideals for those of the Islamic immigrant population. But when they go abroad to non-Western countries, either to live or to visit, it’s considered offensive not to adapt to their ways of life.

Learning a Culture Should Work Both Ways

No one who found the Charlie Hebdo op-ed so offensive would ever suggest Morocco ought to welcome McDonalds or Wal-Mart with open arms. They would say the country is being ruined with Western culture. They want non-Western countries to remain exactly as they are—preserved and frozen in time-while the West must endlessly adapt to anyone who makes it their home.

The article highlights the important fact that Europe has failed to ask its Muslim immigrant population to assimilate. This fact was demonstrated recently when police discovered that the only surviving terrorist from the Paris attacks, Salah Abdeslam, was able to travel from Paris to Brussels and conceal himself there until a few days before the Brussels attacks. He was aided by a large community of French and Muslim Belgians whose loyalties clearly lie with their own community, not with Belgium, or Europe at large. What’s more, a 2013 study shows the shocking degree to which European Muslims hate the West.

Asking immigrants to assimilate doesn’t mean white-washing their culture and religion, asking them not to wear the hijab, or demanding that they eat pork. But it does mean asking them to accept, to some degree, the culture of the country to which they have willingly moved. These are things like women’s rights, tolerance, free speech, or criticism of religion. It also means not having to apologize for having a culture of one’s own. This is the point that Michel Houellebecq made in his recent novel, “Submission.”

Slow-Boiling Our Brains

Europeans have been lulled into accepting that it’s wrong to criticize Islam or scrutinize it in any way. The Charlie Hebdo editorial points out that it’s a slow process, an insidious wearing away of what is and isn’t acceptable to say or think. The process must be slow, because few people would accept a proposal dictating what topics they’re not allowed to discuss. So, you gradually shame them into it.

This establishes a pre-conditioned mindset so the line of acceptability can be moved further and further until the problem of global jihad can no longer be effectively explored because we aren’t even allowed to ask fundamental questions. This is Charlie Hebdo’s point about Tariq Ramadan, whose grandfather founded the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and whose father was an active member of the group. Through the guise of intellectualism and purported adherence to moderate Islam, he instructs his audience ever so gently that the problem has nothing to do with Islam, and that suggesting so is ugly and base.

We acquiesce, because, as Charlie Hebdo points out, we fear being seen as Islamaphobic or racist. We are made to feel guilty if the thought flashes through our head that we wish that the new sandwich shop run by a Muslim sold bacon, or that a woman wearing a hijab makes us a little uncomfortable. That fear that we feel when we entertain those thoughts, the op-ed argues, saps our willingness to scrutinize, analyze, debate, or reject anything about Islam. And this is dangerous.

Fierce Reactions Aim to Condition Us Into Fear

Although Europe is further along in this process, there is a clear relevance to the United States. We are already being instructed on college campuses and by our own president that Muslims are a sort of protected class regarding criticism. President Obama even went so far as to censor French President François Hollande when he used the forbidden phrase “Islamist terrorism.”

The latest incident of shaming those who do push back ishappening in Kansas, where the Islamic Society of Wichita invited Sheik Monzer Talib to speak at a fundraising event on Good Friday. Talib is a known fundraiser for Hamas, the militant Islamist Palestinian group that the United States classifies as a terrorist organization. He even has sung a song called “I am from Hamas.” U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo dared to put out a press release objecting to the speech out of concern that it would harm the Muslim community, particularly in the wake of the Brussels terrorist attack.

In response, the mosque claimed Pompeo stoked prejudice and Islamaphobia and that they had to cancel the event because of protest announcements and because some individuals on Facebook made some offhand comments about guns. Cue a local media frenzy, letters to the editor accusing Pompeo of government overreach, and the predictable arrival of two CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) representatives to skewer Pompeo.

This is just one example of how criticizing or questioning the actions of a Muslim community—even one that is supporting a Hamas fundraiser—has become anathema. The line of acceptability has been moved so now it’s Islamaphobic to object to someone with links to Islamist groups being invited to a U.S. mosque while we’re in the midst of a global battle against Islamist terrorism. People don’t even want to discuss it. The conversation is over. Just as Charlie Hebdo asks, so should we ask ourselves, “How did we get here?”

Although the particulars of the Charlie Hebdo editorial may go too far, and I do not endorse everything the article says, the overarching message is that Europe has slowly let this happen year by year, decade by decade, like a frog in a pot slowly brought to a boil. Post-colonial guilt and shame have stopped Europeans from openly loving and defending their own culture. The state of things in Europe today is the natural conclusion of that neglect. We in America are on the same road.

M. G. Oprea is a writer based in Austin, Texas. She holds a PhD in French linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. You can follow her on Twitter here.

The Canard of Islamophobia

cair_Nihad-Awad_executive-director-660x350-1459931398

Crisis Magazine, by Tom Jay, April 6, 2016:

After the bombings in Brussels and Lahore, brief, perfunctory comments of sympathy were made, and then non-Muslims were ordered to be nice to Muslims. Muslims are now what Stephen Krason has called a “favored group.” How did this happen?

In 2004, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made the grave diagnosis that the West is afflicted with Islamophobia. Annan soberly explained that “the weight of history and the fallout of recent developments have left many Muslims around the world feeling aggravated and misunderstood, concerned about the erosion of their rights and even fearing for their physical safety.” His remarks, astonishingly, suggested that Muslims were the real victims of 9/11. Anan went on to describe the growing concern among non-Muslims that Islam carries within it a strain of anti-Western ideology as a “caricature.” Christine Fair, Associate Professor at the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, almost explicitly blamed Belgium for the two attacks in Brussels on NPR, saying that Belgium should expect such attacks given its lax gun laws and an anti-Islamic bias which prevents assimilation. This, of course, is the result of Belgian Islamophobia.

Nominally Catholic Georgetown University boasts a $20 million eponymous Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU), part of Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service. On its website, John L. Esposito, University Professor and Founding Director of the ACMCU, defends the term Islamophobia, opining that Jews have the term “anti-Semitism” to rally support for their causes, while the other Semitic religion had no such term within which it could find protection. Esposito asserts, “we have had no comparable effective way to counter the hostility, prejudice and discrimination directed towards Islam and the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world.” (Note Esposito’s claim that Islamophobia is so prolific it touches every Muslim in the world.) According to Esposito, “in 1997, the Runnymede Trust, a UK-based independent think tank on ethnicity and cultural diversity, coined the term ‘Islamophobia,’ to describe what they saw as a two-stranded form of racism—rooted in both the ‘different’ physical appearance of Muslims and also in an intolerance of their religious and cultural beliefs.” Predictably, Esposito turns to specious data, claiming “in 2005, the Muslim civil rights advocacy organization reported a 49 percent increase in the reported cases of harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment from 2003, which marked the highest number of Muslim civil rights cases ever reported to CAIR in its eleven year history.”

CAIR is the Center for American-Islamic Relations, an organization that has long been of interest to the FBI because of links to terrorist networks among its leadership. This doesn’t bother Esposito or the ACMCU. Nor does he cite any secular, independent source to support his astounding claim about the increase in alleged hate crimes against Muslims; far easier to assume things than to prove them.

The ACMCU rejects any approach to the Islamist crisis that “implies that Islam, not just its misuse by extremists, is the root cause of the problem.” Rather, Esposito, CAIR, and the UN, along with President Obama, continually suggest terrorism is the result of Western policies in the Middle East. Islamophobia is invoked anytime someone dissents from this orthodoxy.

To make their claims credible, Islamophobia apologists insist a qualitative difference exists between Muslims and terrorists, the latter being a fringe group of radicals who do not represent “true Islam.” They tell us repeatedly, “Islam is a religion of peace.” Yet, each attack, rightly, brings such claims under closer scrutiny. And, what about attacks by Muslims who are not terrorists, such as the 15 migrants arrested in Italy last April for throwing 12 Christians overboard during their Mediterranean crossing simply because their fellow migrants were saying Christian prayers?

Claims that Islam has nothing whatever to do with Islamism ignores the prevailing exegesis of the Qu’ran and Hadith in the Islamic world. As Robert R. Reilly masterfully explains in his book The Closing of the Islamic Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Islamist Crisis, with the ascendancy of Ash‘arism in the Middle Ages, the template of today’s Sunni and Wahhabi Islam, God is understood as pure will. Secondary causes are denied and no act is good or evil. There is only what Reilly calls “moral agnosticism,” what Allah allows or prohibits. Reilly indicates that every school of Islamic thought has rejected causality and accepted the God of voluntarism, including Shi῾ites. This has serious implications for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. A God of will rather than logos leads to tyranny, the will to power. Neither the ACMCU nor CAIR addresses these profound questions, even though they constitute the root of the Islamist crisis. They would rather shift the responsibility onto non-Muslims under the banner of Islamophobia.

Rather than engage the non-Muslim world in the free market of ideas, the ACMCU and CAIR hide behind smoke and mirrors, claiming prerogatives only available in Europe and the U.S. Islamophobia is a strategy implemented systematically to silence citizens in politically correct societies ruled by unelected elites where being intolerant is the most egregious of crimes (unless committed against Christians). CAIR now bears the First Amendment like a shield, deflecting attention from Islamist violence to civil liberties. Moreover, by making this an issue of civil rights rather than theological reform, CAIR and Georgetown’s ACMCU stifle the theological and philosophical reflection regarding Islam that needs to begin in earnest. This is a disservice to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Phobia as a Political Weapon
In a civilization rife with fear, it’s no wonder the word phobia has gained currency. Anyone who disagrees with any tenet of populist sentiments is immediately diagnosed with a phobia of some kind. There cannot possibly be sound reasons to object to so-called “marriage equality”; that’s homophobia. No rational person can be anxious about unregulated immigration; that’s xenophobia. Equally, there can be no reasonable questions asked about the connection between Islam and violence; this is now Islamophobia.

Are those who use the word Islamophobia using it correctly? The Greek word phobosmeans the emotion of fear. The English word phobia means an irrational psychosis. This is why phobias are relegated to the domain of psychology, not schools of foreign service or the UN. There is nothing irrational about phobos. Aquinas, in Question 125, ‘Of Fear,’ noted “fear is natural to man.” He supports his claim by referring to The Nicomachean Ethics where Aristotle observed that “a man would be insane or insensible to pain, if nothing, not even earthquakes nor deluges, inspired him with fear.”

Is the growing anxiety regarding Islam irrational? If so, then the American Psychological Association should be hosting symposia on Islamophobia, not the UN or Georgetown. Many reasonable figures have expressed quite rational concerns regarding Islam, such as Alexis de Tocqueville, John Quincy Adams, John Wesley, Hilaire Belloc, and Winston Churchill, just to name a few. Aquinas saw a danger in Islam’s inability to attract adherents through the persuasiveness of its own arguments because this leaves only force.

Some have suggested Islamophobia is the result of media coverage. This seems unlikely given that the media now seem to make a point not to say anything about Islam when reporting terrorist attacks, even when it is clear jihadists are responsible. The media now prefer amorphous terms like “radicalized individuals.” Yet, this immediately provokes the question of who or what radicalized them. Those who would have us believe these people are motivated by economic atrophy caused by bygone policies of Western imperialism woefully underestimate the power of religious fervor. And, they ignore the claims of the jihadists themselves who know their own religion better than any non-Muslim does. The Brussels bombers were not crying out phrases from the Sykes-Picot Agreement as they murdered scores of helpless civilians.

It seems manifest that CAIR and leftist PC ideologues are largely succeeding in divorcing Islam from terrorism. Yet, the question persists: why, among the world’s religions, are orchestrated acts of indiscriminate violence committed only in the name of Islam? No other religious tradition in the world must grapple with such a phenomenon. One sympathizes with the average Muslim who does not himself understand what is being done in his name.

Two decades of Islamist violence tells us that anyone who rejects the anti-rationalism of modern Islam is now a potential target. This is not Islamophobia. It is a sad fact proved by the indiscriminate nature of every terrorist attack, both in terms of locale and number of innocents killed. It is also clear from the words of Islamists themselves.

It is not a symptom of phobia to expect an organization like CAIR, which posits itself as a guide toward “the middle way,” to offer some means of synthesizing virulent claims by prominent Muslims with a “religion of peace.” Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s spokesman, standing in front of a clutch of microphones claiming “terrorism has no religion” is simply not enough anymore. Whether he likes it or not, terrorism has claimed a religion.

What is CAIR?
What are we to make of CAIR, the group that now stands at the vanguard of Islamic-American relations? CAIR claims it respects the Constitution and accepts the religious pluralism guaranteed by its First Amendment. This is hard to believe when Mr. Hooper himself famously (or infamously) said, “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future… But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.” This is cold comfort.

Many on both sides of the aisle in Congress are keenly aware of CAIR’s suspect behavior. Senator Chuck Schumer said, “we know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism.” Senator Dick Durbin commented that CAIR is “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.” Likewise, Senator Barbara Boxer noted, “To praise [CAIR] because they haven’t been indicted is like somebody saying, ‘I’m not a crook.’ We made a bad mistake not researching the organization.” Additionally, Rep. Bill Shuster observed, “CAIR has failed to prove that it is not in league with radical Islam. Time and again the organization has shown itself to be nothing more than an apologist for groups bent on the destruction of Israel and Islamic domination over the West.”

Interestingly, the Middle East Forum reports that there are many notable Muslim Americans who also have serious concerns about CAIR.

The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of “extremists whose views do not represent Islam.” Jamal Hasan of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance explains that CAIR’s goal is to spread “Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook.” Kamal Nawash, head of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, finds that CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that “almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states.” Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance calls CAIR “the most accomplished fifth column” in the United States. And Stephen Schwartz of the Center on Islamic Pluralism writes that “CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party, USA.”

Are all of these Muslim organizations also afflicted with Islamophobia? Despite all of these concerns, CAIR has enjoyed privileged access to the last three administrations.

If the actions of Islamists all over the world are not “true Islam,” then what is? No one at CAIR or Georgetown’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding seems interested in considering this question honestly. Accusing non-Muslims of being afflicted with a phobia is absurd and evasive. CAIR and the ACMCU should be working to help the Islamic world toward untangling the thick knot of theological confusion that is undermining the very goals they claim to be pursuing. In the meantime, they should also put plenty of daylight between themselves and known agents of Islamism, while showing some sensitivity to the rational concerns about Islam among non-Muslims in America and Europe.

Editor’s note: Pictured above is CAIR executive director Nihad Awad at a press conference. 

Tom Jay is a teacher at a charter school in Scottsdale, Arizona. Prior to his current position, he taught junior high at a Title I parochial school in the Diocese of Phoenix. Tom is a graduate of the University of Dallas.