Return of the CAIR Quran

Return of the CAIR Quran

By Joe Kaufman | 2/28/2008

In September of 2002, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) began an ambitious project, whereby thousands of libraries across America would be provided with sets of books promoting Islam. The books included a version of the Quran that was banned by the Los Angeles school system for having anti-Semitic commentaries. After a long interval, where CAIR appeared to have disavowed itself from the book, it (the book) has made a comeback — a cameo appearance on CAIR’s national website. The following was written as a reiteration of a recent past, when a radical Muslim group attempted to propagate hatred throughout our country, under the guise of education. Amana Publications is based in Beltsville, Maryland. For over 20 years, it has been producing books for the Muslim community. Its top “bestselling” book goes by the title of “The Meaning of THE HOLY QUR’AN,” and it is considered to be the most widely read English translation of the Quran in the world.

One of the book’s features that sets this version of the Quran apart from others is its running commentary. It’s probably the key to what makes this book so popular. It is also the one thing that has brought the book a large degree of notoriety.

[[AD]]The English translation of the Amana Quran was performed by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. According to Amana, Ali’s first rendition was completed in the late 1930’s, on his 65th birthday. Along with the translation, Ali is credited with authoring a scholarly commentary throughout the text. The commentary is voluminous, making the book much larger in size than other Qurans; the latest edition — the tenth edition — is 1824 pages.

Besides the standard anti-Semitic statements found in the Quran, such as “Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors,” Ali’s commentary went that much further with its anti-Jewish rhetoric. Some quotes from the text include:

  • “The Jews in their arrogance claimed that all wisdom and all knowledge of Allah were enclosed in their hearts… Their claim was not only arrogance but blasphemy.”
  • “A trick of the Jews was to twist words and expressions, so as to ridicule the most solemn teachings of Faith.”
  • “[T]here is a catalogue of the iniquities of which the Jews were guilty, and for these iniquities we must understand some such words as: ‘They are under divine displeasure.’”
  • “The Jews blaspheme and mock, and because of their jealousy, the more they are taught, the more obstinate they become in their rebellion… Their selfishness and spite sow quarrels among themselves, which will not be healed till the Day of Judgment.”

It is because of these statements that, in February of 2002, the Los Angeles public school system chose to pull every copy (nearly 300 copies) of “The Meaning of THE HOLY QUR’AN” from the shelves of all of its libraries. As stated by the Los Angeles Times, “After reviewing the book, [director of the Los Angeles Unified School District, Jim] Konantz instructed principals to secure all copies in their offices until the district determines what to do with them.” Later, the decision was made to ban all future usage.

However, the translation and commentaries are not the only overt signs of anti-Semitism in this Quran. Looking under the word “Jews” in the index of the book, one finds the following: “became apes and swine,” “cursed,” “enmity of,” “greedy of life,” “slew prophets,” “took usury,” “unbelief and blasphemy of,” “work iniquity,” and “write the Book with their own hands.”

The editor of the Amana Quran is the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT). In March of 2002, IIIT’s Virginia offices were raided by the FBI in a terror financing probe. IIIT had funneled tens of thousands of dollars to groups and individuals associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).

The same year that the Los Angeles public school system removed the Amana Quran from its library shelves for having virulently anti-Semitic content — the same year that the editor of the Quran, IIIT, was raided by the FBI for its role in funding terrorists — the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) elected to include the book in its library project.

CAIR was founded in June of 1994 as a front for the terrorist organization Hamas. 13 years later, in June of 2007, CAIR was labeled by the U.S. government as an “unindicted co-conspirator” for a Dallas, Texas trial that dealt with the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas.

On September 11, 2002, the one year anniversary of the worst tragedy to ever take place on American soil, CAIR announced a new initiative, titled ‘Explore Islamic Culture & Civilization.’ The goal of the project was to place sets of Islamic-oriented books in thousands of libraries across the United States. It was funded in part by a $500,000 gift from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Just prior to Bin Talal getting involved in the initiative, in April of 2002, he donated $27 million during a three-day telethon, which was being sponsored by the Saudi government group, the Committee for Support of the al-Aqsa Intifada. The total amount raised by the telethon was $109 million; Bin Talal had been the single largest donor. According to Israeli intelligence, the money that was raised went to assist families of Palestinian terrorists, including families of suicide bombers.

The Amana Quran was not the only problematic text in CAIR’s library set. One of the others was Jamal Badawi’s ‘GENDER EQUITY IN ISLAM,’ a book produced by American Trust Publications (ATP). ATP is the publishing arm of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), an organization that, like CAIR, was named by the U.S. government as an “unindicted co-conspirator” for the Dallas trial.

But what’s most disturbing about this book is not its publisher, but its content, specifically the fact that it attempts to justify the beating of women by their husbands. In it, Badawi writes, “There are cases… where a wife persists in deliberate mistreatment of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations. Instead of divorce, the husband may resort to another measure that may save the marriage… Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body…” The Amana Quran refers to this as a “light beating.” Badawi calls it a “permissible beating.”

Another of the texts was Paul Findley’s ‘Silent No More.’ In the book, Findley lauds convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi as “a leader in Islamic affairs.” He exalts Neo-Nazi William Baker as “a Christian leader” and states, “Not enough Americans read the messages of… Baker.” And about the former Executive Director of the American Muslim Council (AMC) Eric Erfan Vickers, who described the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster as “an act of divine retribution against Israel,” Findley calls him “a rising voice in St. Louis politics.” Additionally, Findley memorializes each of these individuals with color pictures.

In May of 2005, CAIR, working off the success of its library project, launched a new campaign offering a free copy of the Quran to anyone who asked. The initiative was given the name, ‘Explore the Quran.’ According to CAIR, it was in response to an article printed in Newsweek magazine, which falsely claimed that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay flushed a Quran down the toilet.

The Quran that was chosen for the CAIR campaign was, of course, the Amana one. It was used by the group, up until October of 2006, when CAIR decided to change to a new version published in Bristol, England, ‘The Message of THE QUR’AN.’ This edition was probably selected as a result of the controversy from the Amana text, for the simple reason that it was translated and contains commentary by a Jewish convert to Islam named Muhammad Asad (formerly Leopold Weiss).

For over a year, CAIR had sought to put distance between itself and its former Los Angeles banned edition of the Quran. Nevertheless, on Thursday, February 21, 2008, the Amana version resurfaced in an article CAIR-National posted on its website about another convert to Islam, a doctor at the Texas Tech Health Sciences Center named Jane Colmer-Hamood. The article, ‘Doctor Explains What it Means to Be a Muslim Woman,’ contains a photo of Colmer-Hamood proudly holding up the infamous Amana Quran. And the picture was not only found within the article itself, but it was placed, as well, on CAIR’s homepage, and it is still there, as of this writing.

The reunion of CAIR and its former Quran was surely a momentous occasion for the radical Islamic group, as it had previously referred to the text as the “most respected English translation of the Quran.” One day, maybe CAIR will, yet again, embrace its “most respected” holy book — an unindicted co-conspirator with a banned text. The two, no doubt, are destined for each other.


Interventionism, Obama-Style

Interventionism, Obama-Style

By Ray Robison

Can you imagine the international outcry if a President of the United States went to the United Nations and demanded that a UN military force invade a hostile, sovereign country? Sure you can; we already lived through that over Iraq. Now imagine that President Bush had made the demand that our allies like Canada and Australia should invade, but not offer a single US infantry soldier beside them. Wouldn’t that be a bit embarrassing?

Then get ready for the foreign policy of an Obama Administration.
Of late, Obama has sung a decidedly noninterventionist tune. But it wasn’t always so. The senator sounded quite hawkish just a few years ago in 2005,when he urged military intervention in the Darfur conflict. Senator Obama coauthored an op-ed piece for the Washington Post  in which he lauded the Bush Administration for trying to end that conflict, a fight that has little to do with US national security. He urged an escalation, a surge if you will, of American diplomatic and military support to end the humanitarian crises created by ethnic-religious conflict. He wrote, “It has become clear that a U.N. – or NATO-led force is required” to end escalating violence in Sudan.

However he did not say US forces should be in direct combat roles. So what exactly did he mean?

The Senator continued to push for stronger outside military involvement in the Sudan civil war in late 2006. He told the Chicago Sun-Times “my overarching sense is the great urgency to get a United Nations protective force on the ground.”
Again, this sounds like an interventionist policy.
Can that be right I wondered? Surely no reasonable American leader would demand an escalation in military commitment by our friends without a willingness to lead with our own forces.
But that is exactly what Senator Obama was pushing. PBS’s  Gwen Ifill asked the Senator to clarify his position on what the US should commit to in Sudan:
I’ll turn this question to Sen. Obama, if NATO gets involved, does that increase the chances that there will be US troops involved on the ground?
Senator Obama’s response is just shocking:
Well, I don’t think that the issue right now is US troops. The issue is US leadership.
In the interim, having NATO forces there that could be supplied by some of the middle powers, Canada, Australia, others that have experience in peacekeeping would be absolutely crucial.
Evidently, what Senator Obama wanted was for the US to demonstrate leadership by pressuring our allies to conduct a mission to which he wasn’t prepared to commit our own forces. It might be understandable if he were talking about just the African or regional forces already involved. But no, he specifically said we should demand that our NATO allies risk their soldier’s lives while we were going to sit it out.
Later, when asked a direct question about his opposition to staying in Iraq despite the threat of increasing the humanitarian crises if we left Iraq, he stated:
“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now – where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife – which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.
So Obama can be said to have a noninterventionist policy — unless he can make someone else do the dirty work. Is that what passes for Democratic leadership now-a-days? JFK would be rolling in his grave.
Thereby Obama stakes out an appearance of hawkishness as long as it is to help the weak and innocent, yet a certain amount of dovishness (for the liberal base) in that he doesn’t want to intervene unilaterally — conveniently forgetting that the US has had forces in Iraq under UN mandate for many years now. Sprinkle in some multicultural balderdash and viola! — our enemies will kowtow and our friends will love us for it.
And this is the man that is going to “restore” our standing in the world? Any guesses as to what Canadians or Australians might say to an American president who made such a demand?
The truth is that any American president who wants to lead this world into a better state by spreading democracy, economic prosperity, rule of law and American largess must consider the use of force from time to time. A courageous Commander and Chief must be willing to accept the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that comes with leading troops into battle. Claiming the moral high ground by making a grandiose show of your willingness to fight for the poor, yet pawning the dirty work of actually fighting off to friends is simply craven. Would you want a friend who pawns the dirty work on to you while he claims the credit?

Ray Robison is co-author of Both in One Trench.

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2007

After watching a focus group of democrats that watched the democratic debate the other day in Vegas, ….  For the most part, all of them bashed Bush over and over again on how he is out for his millionaire friends and the big oil companies and he has totally forgotten or disregarded the little guy.  So an ex-IRS employee, decided to look back on the tax tables to see if there is any truth to what they said and the media keeps stating as fact, “Bush is only out for the rich in this country.” Based on using the actual tax tables here are some examples on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both singles and married couples.  So let’s see if the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich.
 Taxes under Clinton 1999                                      Taxes under Bush 2007
Single making 30K – tax $8,400                               Single making 30K – tax $4,100                             
Single making 50K – tax $14,000                             Single making 50K – tax $8,900
Single making 75K – tax $23,250                             Single making 75K – tax $15,150
Married making 60K – tax $16,800                          Married making 60K – tax $8,200
Married making 75K – tax $21,000                          Married making 75K – tax $11,600
Married making 125K – tax $38,750                        Married making 125K – tax $24,100
 If you want to know just how effective the mainstream media is, it is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever.  If any democrat is elected, ALL of them say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can’t wait for it to happen.  This is like in the movie The Sting with Paul Newman, you scam somebody out of some money and they don’t even know what happened.   Now this is effective marketing or maybe a better word is brain washing.