The Council on American-Islamic Relations has released its 2013 report on Islamophobia, titled “Legislating Fear”. The report constitutes one big pity party over the abject failure of CAIR (and other Islamist organizations) to convince Americans that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Although the report is 162 pages long, much of it was cut and pasted from their previous 2009-2010 report.

CAIR receives most of its funds from overseas, so they are somewhat accountable for how effectively that money is being spent. Since the Islamists are losing ground in terms of anti-Sharia legislation and school textbook dawah, they must blame someone (actually, lots of people and organizations) for their failures. They have identified 69 different organizations “whose primary purpose is to promote prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims”, either directly or by regular support. It is a matter of concern, however, that the long litany of grievances, offending individuals and “anti-Muslim” organizations could provide ample impetus for fanatical Muslims to carry out bloody “Islamic justice.”

Nowhere in this document, however, is there any acknowledgement that the Islamists have been making demands and insisting on prerogatives that run counter to the U.S. Constitution, state laws, and basic human rights. Also, nowhere is there any suggestion that perhaps the Islamists need to modify their Islamic ideology to make it more compatible with Western civilization in the 21s Century.

CAIR wants the word “Islamist” dropped from the American lexicon. They argue that those who use it are "making a political and religious value judgment each time it is used". Unfortunately, Islam is at best 14 percent religion (Quran) and 86 percent political (Muhammad) based on Bill Warner’s analysis. What are most offensive to non-Muslims are the political activities of Muslims exercised under the cover of religion. Until CAIR can suggest a word that covers Islam’s unprecedented obsession with society outside the mosque (including the despised kufrs), the word Islamist must apply.

CAIR goes to great lengths throughout the report to conflate criticism of the ideology of Islam with anti-Muslim bias. They define an Islamophobe as “an individual who holds a closed-minded view of Islam and promotes prejudice against or hatred of Muslims.” In consistently linking Islamic ideology with Muslim people, the report sees pervasive bigotry where the actual situation is just the condemnation of Islamic doctrines that fly in the face of civil rights and community harmony.

Money, money, money: Right from the opening page of the report, CAIR is asking for money, both from Muslim-Americans and from overseas supporters. They have tallied up the money spent by the opposition right down to the dollar! $119,662,719, to be exact. Why not just say $120 million? They are also quite jealous over the salaries made by the opposition. Not only does the CAIR report quote the exact salaries of David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel and others, but a table on page 14 calculates an average salary increase of 12% for the parties listed. It looks as though CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is bucking for a raise.

Financial Disclosure Hypocrisy -- CAIR gleaned most of its information about the anti-Islamist organizations by reading the IRS Form 990’s required by non-profit organizations. This is both ironic and hypocritical, since CAIR lost its non-profit status in 2011 because it has failed to file those forms disclosing its own membership and sources of funds since 2006. It was only due to the Tea Party tax exemption brouhaha that their tax exempt status was reinstated earlier this year.

Friends and Enemies Lists – Given the number of brutal assassinations by Muslims of non-Muslims (often with no justification), CAIR’s lengthy lists of friends and enemies with pictures is troubling. Those assassinations include Daniel Pearl (2002), Theo Van Gogh (2004), Salmaan Taseer (2011), Lee Rigby (2013), and Dominic Parker (2013). The “Best List” contains only four individuals – Rais Buhuiyan, Chris Christie, Dick Durban, and Anderson Cooper (who would be arrested and hanged if he ever set foot inside Saudi Arabia or Iran). The “Worst List” includes David Caton, Jerry Boykin, Muslim Zuhdi Jasser, Herman Cain, Peter King, David Yerushalmi, Allen West, and Walid Shoebat. Also mentioned are the state legislators who sponsored “anti-Islam” legislation (better known as American Laws for American Courts).

So-called Anti-Islam Legislation – The title of CAIR’s report and longest chapter in the report deal with the advance of the American Laws for American Courts legislation.  According to the report, there have been 78 ALAC bills introduced in 29 states. Six states (Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee) have successfully passed such legislation. These laws essentially confirm that the state and federal laws take precedent over foreign laws. From CAIR’s point of view these laws “have at their heart the goal of subjecting Islam to government-sanctioned censure.” Naturally, Muslims who emigrated from countries where Islam was the national religion might see these laws as "censure", but the fundamental problem ignored in CAIR’s report is that Sharia Law contradicts the U.S. constitution and many state laws with regard to cruel and unusual punishments, mandated eye-for-an-eye revenge, women’s rights, freedom of worship, inheritance, and equality before the law, just to name a few. CAIR cannot even honestly describe Sharia Law: “It is a set of interpretations [not laws which exact physical and corporal punishments, mind you] of the Quran and other Islamic sources [Only a small fraction of Sharia can be traced to the Quran; the rest is man-made, as is evidenced by the development of five schools of Islamic jurisprudence several centuries after the Quran was “handed down.”]; it is dynamic and intended to accommodate the time, place and laws – in America that means the U.S. Constitution – of the particular community [not to mention that the most recent codification approved by the U.S. based International Institute of Islamic Thought – Reliance of the Traveler – was written around 1360]. . . . Sharia mandates Muslims to respect the law of the land in which they live [except that R of T states in paragraph w43.5(c), “it is clear that there is virtually no country on the face of the earth where a Muslim has an excuse to behave differently than he would in an Islamic country, whether in his commercial or other dealings.”]

CAIR goes on to argue that Sharia Law in America is a “non-existent problem.” Human rights advocates have identified fifty cases in twenty-three states where Sharia Law was applied in contradiction to State and Federal laws. These cases were discovered only because they were reversed on appeal – a process that few victims of Sharia Law have the knowledge or resources to undertake (See, Don’t tell 17-year-old New Jersey bride, “S.D.”, that Sharia Law is a non-existent problem:  She was repeatedly raped and beaten by her new husband who successfully argued in court that it was his right as a Muslim to treat his wife that way (See, New Jersey Judge Rules Muslim Man's Right to Rape is Religious Freedom). Fortunately, the case was overturned on appeal.

Freedom of Speech redefined as “Normalization of Islamophobic Rhetoric” -- CAIR seems nonplussed that Americans can openly criticize the shortcomings of a religious ideology – something that would be a capital crime of  blasphemy in most Islamic countries. Making their case in a country that considers freedom of speech a basic civil right is a hard sell. Their only option is to resort to distortion and hyperbole. Here is one of their cases in point of “anti-Muslim rhetoric” – presented below from the point of view of CAIR and from the speaker herself, local elected official Deborah Pauly:

CAIR’s version:  Speaking outside a fundraising event for a Muslim charity in Yorba Linda, Calif., in 2011, Councilwoman Deborah Pauly (R-Villa Park) told a crowd, “What’s going on over there [at the fundraiser] right now . . . that is pure, unadulterated evil,” and “Make no mistake my friends, these who are assembling are enemies of America.” Later she added, “I know quite a few Marines who will be very happy to help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise.” Young children were among the event’s attendees.

Deborah Pauly’s version: As usual, CAIR is shameless in its distortion of the truth. Everyone at that Islamic Circle of North America rally was protesting the two speakers, Imam Siraj Wahhaj and Malik Ali. You are well aware of their radical backgrounds and calls for jihad in America – going so far as encouraging college students, who are members of the Muslim Student Unions, "to prepare to martyr themselves for the sake of furthering the nation of Islam" and openly supporting terrorist groups like Hamas. They've taken my words out of context. The context was that we are "confronting evil and weapons of evil, including lies and deception." I went on to say that "if they (the organizers) were the altruistic, peace loving relief agency the (event's promotional) flyer claims, they would be condemning these terrorist instigators, not inviting them to be their keynote speakers." My reference had nothing to do with women or children. It had everything to do with the organizers and their two invited speakers, who advocate for violent overthrow of America.

The problem for CAIR with regard to freedom of speech is that they can no longer afford to file lawsuits against each and every comment by public officials and pundits that seems to be offensive to Muslims. Back in 2003, CAIR successfully sued and silenced syndicated radio commentator, Paul Harvey, who had a nation-wide audience of 24 million, for saying that the popularity of bloody cockfighting in Iraq was evidence that their religion “encourages killing.” Now, such comments are so widespread that CAIR’s legal jihad has lost its advantage. All CAIR can do is report on the growing list of prominent public figures who are courageous enough to tell the truth about Islam: John Joseph Jay, Pamela Geller, Deborah Pauly, Pat Robertson, Debbie Schlussel, Rep. Paul Broun, Rep. Allen West, Rep. Rick Womick, Bryan Fischer, Donald Trump, Cal Thomas, Rep. Kevin Grantham, Mike Huckabee, Eric Bolling, and many more. An entire chapter in the report is devoted to “anti-Muslim” comments made by Presidential candidates in the 2012 Election cycle.

Targeting “Anti-Muslim” Trainers – One of CAIR’s few success stories coming out of their 2013 report is the sidelining of non-Muslim anti-terrorism trainers and purging government briefing documents of references to Islam and Islamic ideology. As result, jihad terror attacks like the Fort Hood massacre by “Soldier of Allah” Nidal Hasan are described as "workplace violence". CAIR wants to be involved in the trainer accreditation process and oversee classroom sessions anonymously. The end result would be a nation-wide blacklist: “If states agreed to share lists of bad trainers, then the trainer would effectively be banned nationwide.”

The consequences of this deliberate blindsiding of public officials with regard to Islamic ideology can be seen in the confused and often contradictory foreign policy positions taken by the U.S. government with regard to the Middle East. The Islamist government advisors and trainers are white-washing and covering up the “elephant in the room” and our government is continually “stepping in it” with regard to foreign and domestic counter-terrorism policy. The problem was most eloquently stated by Martin Kramer in “Ivory Towers on Sand” – “Middle Eastern studies under the post-orientalists has become a remote enclave of esoteric and irrelevant endeavor, resting on an ever-narrowing base of moral support” while “The growing reputation of the think tanks rested on their delivery of timely, reliable, and persuasive analyses of developments and trends that bore on the interests and policies of the United States.” In short, the use of Muslim apologists for Islam to guide national policy will make their advice irrelevant because they are obscuring rather than exposing the central problem with regard to domestic and international terrorism – the militant ideology of Islam. CAIR’s success in blinding our government leaders about Islam may come back to haunt us all.

The Grievances Go On and On – The CAIR report contains 17 chapters describing the perceived “anti-Muslim” activities and events. Some of the grievances cited in the report are almost comical.

  • Rep. Peter King’s hearings on the Radicalization of the American Muslim Community were anti-Muslim, although one of Rep. King’s key witnesses was Muslim Zuhdi Jasser.
  • Christian immigrants are seen more favorably by Americans than Muslim immigrants
  • American Islamophobia caused the Anders Breivek killing spree in Norway
  • The “All-American Muslim” TV reality series was canceled due to anti-Muslim hate groups
  • Lowe’s helped scuttle “All-American Muslim” by pulling its advertising. Never mind that viewership plummeted from 1.7 million initialy to only 900,000 by the end of the first season. Most successful TV series experience a growing audience during the first season.
  • American Freedom Defense Initiative’s “Savage” ads in response to the anti-Israel ads were “hate speech” (but apparently not the anti-Israel ads).
  • Monitoring of pro-Islamic propaganda in public schools and textbooks is Islamophobic interference with legitimate education about world religions.

Unrealistic Expectations -- CAIR’s vision for Islam in America reveals how insular their thinking is about the ideological difficulties contained in the Quran. CAIR wants Islam to enjoy "an equal place among many faiths in America’s pluralistic society". Their goal is for Islam to have a 75 percent or higher favorability rating among the general public. Never mind that, according to Bill Warner’s analysis, 64 percent of the Quran is devoted to the politics of the kafr – the non-Muslim, and 67 percent of the biography of Muhammad is about jihad. Islam does not have a “Golden Rule” which brings people together regardless of religious background. Instead, the Quran says, “Muhammad is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (Surah 48:29)

Also, CAIR envisions a time when "a person’s Muslim faith is considered an asset in private employment and public service". The key to the success of a business and the effectiveness of a public service organization is the cooperation, continuous improvement, and partnering of the staff. Numerous specific commands in the Quran and Sharia Law make that particularly difficult for Muslim employees: “Through [Muslims] [Allah] seeks to enrage the unbelievers.” (Surah 28:29)  Muslims are told that provoking the unbelievers will be “counted as a good deed in the sight of Allah" (Surah 9:120). Sharia Law says, “It is unbelief (kufr) to turn from the sunna [Islamic practices] in order to imitate non-Muslims when one believes their way to be superior to the sunna.” (R of T, para. e4.1(2). Finally, the Quran says, “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.” (Surah 5:51)

Another reason an employer might think twice about hiring a Muslim is the active and on-going legal jihad which pushes Muslim employees (sometimes against their better interests) to sue their employees for a stunning array of Islamic workplace prerogatives.  Here are just a few with recent case summaries

Conclusion – CAIR refuses to make a distinction between Muslims as people, most of whom just want to live in peace and enjoy the benefits of living in a free society here in America, and the ideology of Islam. Unless the two are linked together, CAIR cannot make the case that those who oppose Islam are hateful, bigoted, and racist to the core. Also, if the Islamic ideology is considered as a separate issue, it would force CAIR to acknowledge that many aspects of that ideology are hostile to the U.S. Constitution, state laws, and basic human rights.

CAIR’s failure to “win the hearts and minds” of the American public is because they have made no effort to reconcile the 7th Century ideology of Islam with the 21st Century realities. Instead, they expend their resources and energy trying to suppress any discussion of that ideology and its harmful effect on society. CAIR’s vision regarding their opposition is uncompromising: “Groups in the inner core [namely, ACT for America, Atlas Shrugs, Middle East Media Research Institute, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Former Muslims United, Jihad Watch, etc.] should be ostracized from mainstream public discourse in a manner similar to white supremacist, anti-Semitic, or other groups, such as the Westboro Baptist Church.” [Actually, CAIR should find a lot of common ground with WBC which promotes demonstrations and demonstrates against gays.] Ostracizing organizations that expose Islam isn’t going to happen, as long as the organizations continue to tell the truth about Islam.

The last time CAIR filed a Form 990 in 2006, their membership had plummeted to 1,700, down from the 29,000 they reported in 2000. Meanwhile, ACT for America’s membership has grown to over 155,000. CAIR’s Executive Director, Nihad Awad, would like a six-figure salary like Brigitte Gabriel’s, but the failure of CAIR to make much headway in improving public opinion with regard to Islam or increasing the active membership in CAIR does not qualify him for a raise or even a small bonus. Mr. Awad should not get all the blame, however. Islam is the problem, just as it has been for 1,400 years. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

Comments powered by CComment

Joomla templates by a4joomla