Sharia vs. Free Speech in Tennessee: CAIR Calls for Tea Party Group to Drop Speaker From Convention

Sharia vs. Free Speech in Tennessee: CAIR Calls for Tea Party Group to Drop Speaker From Convention

by Publius

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is attempting to bully the Tennessee Tea Party Convention into dropping Pamela Geller as one of their speakers for their event this weekend in Gatlinberg.

In a stirring piece of Orwellian propaganda, CAIR cautioned the group via press release:

“The Tea Party needs to decide whether it is a legitimate national political movement or just a safe haven for bigots and extremists,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. “We ask that convention organizers not legitimize Geller’s extremist anti-Muslim rhetoric by offering her an official platform.”

And CAIR should know a little something about being a safe haven for bigots and extremists. After all, their former communications director sits in jail right now after pleading guilty to weapons and explosives charges. He also admitted helping terrorists gain entry to a training camp in Pakistan.

CAIRbusted-vi

While concerned about Ms. Geller’s exercise of free speech and the Tea Party’s exercise of free association, we missed CAIR’s press release denouncing the violation of human rights in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, etc… We’re sure they wrote one, it just wasn’t distributed as widely as this one.

Geller gives her initial response here, but we suspect this won’t be the last we hear on this one.

Progressive Islam Protest – March 11, 2010 Tallahassee, FL

Florida Security Council)
An interesting website that goes medieval on CAIR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-07g8nwIv4&feature=player_embedded

CAIR’s Hamas Co-Conspirator Associates

CAIR’s Hamas Co-Conspirator Associates

Posted By Joe Kaufman On February 15, 2010 @ 12:43 am In FrontPage | 1 Comment

Omar Ahmad’s picture and bio have been removed from CAIR’s national website, but his likeness has turned up on another CAIR site, a local chapter’s one in California. Given CAIR’s publicly known history linking the group to Hamas and given the fallout from the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trials, one would think that CAIR would wish to shed its troubling past. With regards to Ahmad and some others, though, it seems the group has embraced it, proving that CAIR is willing to either sink or swim with its radicals.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR was founded in June 1994 by three individuals, Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber. At the time, all three were involved with the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), what was then the American propaganda wing of the terrorist organization Hamas.

According to Awad, Ahmad (a.k.a. Omar Yahya) was the driving force behind CAIR. In a February 2000 article, entitled ‘Muslim-Americans in Mainstream Media,’ Awad wrote, “Omar suggested to me that we leave the IAP and concentrate on combating anti-Muslim discrimination nationwide. He proposed that I move to Washington, D.C., where any effective national effort would have to be based, while he tried to raise the seed money for the project.”

However, there was something of a much grander scale going on, as CAIR was created as being part of a terrorist conspiracy to raise funds for Hamas from the United States. The conspiracy went by the name American Palestine Committee, and it was led by then-global head of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook.

The committee consisted of CAIR, the IAP, a Hamas command center called the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), and a Hamas financing wing called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). The “seed money” that Awad was talking about came from HLF in the form of a check for $5000.

Ahmad ended his term as IAP National President (1991-1994) and became CAIR’s Chairman of the Board. Awad, who was IAP’s Public Relations Director, became CAIR’s Executive Director. Jaber, who was the President of the IAP’s local chapter in Chicago (American Muslim Society) and later IAP National President, stayed on with CAIR as a director, according to him, till 1996. And Ibrahim Hooper, a colleague of Awad’s from the Minnesota-based Bosnian Relief Committee [1], agreed to come in as CAIR’s Communications Director.

To this day, Awad and Hooper still hold their respective positions. Ahmad, however, stepped down as CAIR Chairman nearly eleven years later and was replaced by Parvez Ahmed in May 2005. Ahmed had previously been involved with local CAIR chapters in Florida and Pennsylvania and is the Registered Agent of CAIR’s Independent Writers Syndicate (IWS), a now defunct newspaper and website commentary distribution service.

Soon after Ahmad’s departure from CAIR, the group changed his status on its national website from “Chairman” to “Chairman Emeritus [2],” a title usually given out of respect for someone who has retired from a sitting position. The title, along with his photo and bio – the same photo and bio that were there previously – remained untouched. That is, until recently.

Today, Omar Ahmad’s information is gone from the CAIR National site. Given that Ahmad was named by the U.S. Justice Department as a co-conspirator in the 2007/2008 HLF federal Hamas financing trials, this would appear to be a smart move for the group, even if CAIR itself was named an HLF trial co-conspirator. From CAIR’s perspective, why add to the problem?

Evidently though, this wasn’t the thinking behind the removal, because while CAIR National nixed Ahmad’s info, his photo was placed on another of CAIR’s websites – the one for its San Francisco Bay Area chapter (CAIR-SFBA) – as one of the group’s Executive Committee Members [2].

And really, CAIR couldn’t be too concerned about someone like Ahmad, when viewing the radical who is heading up its SFBA chapter, Zahra Billoo.

Billoo is the Executive Director and the Programs and Outreach Director of CAIR-SFBA. In December 2008, Billoo contemplated setting up a website asking for volunteers to sign up to attack Israel [3], and in January 2009, she said that “to raise ‘fighters’” against Israel is an “amazing reason to get married.” Well, now she’s getting married, as last month she posted on her blog that she just went in to get tested for Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) for the wedding.

Yet Omar Ahmad is not the only HLF trial co-conspirator who CAIR is openly working with. CAIR-Chicago (CAIR-Illinois) has been showcasing a number of others.

Regarding Hamas in America, Chicago has been one of the ‘hot spots.’ The main hub of this activity is a radical mosque located in the Chicago suburb of Bridgeview, the Mosque Foundation (MF). From here, funds were raised for both HLF and IAP.

A number of individuals related to the Mosque Foundation were named co-conspirators for the HLF trials. One of them, Muhammad Salah, was a member of the MF Executive Committee. According to the U.S. government, Salah was recruiting and training Hamas members and was raising money for Hamas. In July 2007, Salah was convicted of obstruction of justice.

CAIR-Chicago used its website to urge people to attend court in support of Salah [4], whilst calling the case against him “political persecution.” Both CAIR-Chicago Executive Director Ahmed Rehab and CAIR-Chicago Civil Rights Coordinator Christina Abraham took to the airwaves in defense of Salah. About Salah’s sentence, Abraham stated, “It’s a sad day for the Muslim community.”

CAIR-Chicago has sponsored different events at the Mosque Foundation, and as such has become very close with the center’s two main leaders, Jamal Said and Kifah Mustapha, each of which was named a co-conspirator for the HLF trials.

Jamal Said is the primary imam of the Mosque Foundation. Since taking the job in 1985, he has memorialized suicide bombers and helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for terrorists, such as IAP co-founder Sami al-Arian, and terrorist charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation. It was due to his leadership, that Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden’s spiritual mentor, paid the mosque a visit in the mid-1980s to recruit potential mujahideen to fight in Afghanistan.

None of this information has stopped CAIR from holding numerous functions with Said. At one such function in February 2006, CAIR-Chicago’s Second Annual Event, Said took on the role of CAIR fundraiser, telling the audience, according to CAIR, “about the work CAIR-Chicago has done for the Muslim Community and what it can do in the future.” In August 2008, CAIR-Chicago lauded Said in a press release stating, “Imam Jamal Said is a cornerstone of the Chicago Muslim community. [4]

Kifah Mustapha is an imam and the Associate Director of the Mosque Foundation. He is also the Registered Agent for the now defunct Illinois office of HLF, and during a March 2004 deposition of him, he admitted that he did much volunteer work for the IAP. But just like Said, this hasn’t stopped CAIR from working with him.

In May 2006, Mustapha shared the stage with Ahmed Rehab at a CAIR-Chicago forum to discuss citizenship delays. And in February 2007, Mustapha acted as the group’s cheerleader and “rallied” the crowd for CAIR [4], at CAIR-Chicago’s 3rd Annual Event.

CAIR-Chicago included both Said and Mustapha as lecturers for its April 2008 Muslim Youth Leadership Symposium (MYLS). The event was co-sponsored by the Mosque Foundation.

CAIR has called its designation by the U.S. government as an HLF co-conspirator “unjust,” but by associating with other co-conspirators and by ignoring all of the evidence against people like Ahmad, Salah, Said and Mustapha, the group has done nothing to shake its label.

Of course, shaking the co-conspirator label would be an extremely difficult proposition for CAIR, as its entire existence is one that is rooted in terror. It would be nearly impossible to change the reality of the group without getting rid of the group entirely.

Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate [5], the founder of CAIR Watch [6], and the spokesman for Young Zionists [7].


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/15/cair%e2%80%99s-hamas-co-conspirator-associates/

URLs in this post:

[1] Bosnian Relief Committee: http://www.americansagainsthate.org/Bosnian_Relief_Committee.html

[2] Chairman Emeritus: http://www.americansagainsthate.org/CAIR_and_Omar_Ahmad.html

[3] contemplated setting up a website asking for volunteers to sign up to attack Israel: http://www.americansagainsthate.org/CAIR_and_Zahra_Billoo.html

[4] urge people to attend court in support of Salah: http://www.americansagainsthate.org/CAIR_and_Mosque_Foundation.html

[5] Americans Against Hate: http://www.americansagainsthate.org/

[6] CAIR Watch: http://www.cairwatch.org/

[7] Young Zionists: http://www.youngzionists.org/

The Fifth Column at the Department of Homeland Security

The Fifth Column at the Department of Homeland Security

2009 September 1

by Joseph Klein

Glenn Beck has recently been pointing out some dangerous appointments by the Obama administration, including the naming of Mark Lloyd as the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer.  Lloyd believes in enforcing so-called “diversity” of opinion on the broadcast media through local control and accountability rules in order to suppress the conservative voices with whom Lloyd and other leftists disagree.

But as disturbing as this appointment is to those of us who believe in the First Amendment, it pales in comparison to the appointment of Arif Alikhan to serve as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Alikhan, a Sunni Muslim, had previously served as Deputy Mayor of Homeland Security and Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles, where he was primarily responsible for derailing the Police Department’s plan to monitor activities within the Los Angeles Muslim community, including at numerous radical mosques and madrassas that were operating there.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano 

In an effort to justify this dangerous appointment, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano emphasized Alikhan’s “broad and impressive array of experience in national security, emergency preparedness and counterterrorism”.

To the contrary, Alikhan’s opposition to implementing effective measures of national security and counterterrorism sets up a fifth column beachhead in the the very federal agency that is supposed to combat Islamic terrorist plots against our homeland!

CAIR, one of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked American Muslim groups, loved the Obama appointment.  “Congratulations to Mr. Ali Khan on this well-deserved appointment,” said CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush. “Mr. Alikhan’s new position reflects his and the community’s dedication to helping preserve the security of our country.  The American Muslim community can be proud of him”

Janet Napolitano also appointed American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) National Executive Director Kareem Shora as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council.  Shora, who has lashed out against “extreme right-wing AM radio talk-show hosts” and  ”certain pundits on the Fox News Channel” for alleged “opportunistic bigotry”,  has also criticized electronic surveilllance of communications with Middle Eastern countries, immigration screening, and no-fly lists, amongst other counter-terrorism measures.

Obama and Napolitano might as well post a “welcome” sign on the front door of the Department of Homeland Security to would-be Islamic jihadists plotting infiltration of our homeland for destructive purposes.

  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Hillary’s (Almost) Reversal on Border Security
  2. Homeland Security Claims We Are All Potential Right Wing Extremists
  3. Attention Jihadists: Please Have Your Boarding Passes Ready
  4. Why is Barack Hussein Obama’s State Department Breaching the Separation of Mosque and State?
  5. The Islamo-Fascist Fifth Column

 

The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.

The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.

 

Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student’s Association.

The e-mail was in response to the students’ protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.

The group had complained the cartoons were ‘hate speech’

============

Enter Professor Wichman.

==========================================

In his e-mail, he said the following:

===============================

Dear Muslim Association,

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest.

I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called ‘whores’ in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues..I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile ‘protests.’

If you do not like the values of the West – see the 1st Amendment – you are free to leave. I hope for God’s sake that most of you choose that option.

Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,

I. S. Wichman

Professor of Mechanical Engineering

  

=============================

As you can imagine,

the Muslim group at the university didn’t like this too well.

They’re demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty. 

And mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen..

Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray .

CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn’t believe that the good professor

had the right to express his opinion..

==========

For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman,

saying the e-mail was private, and they don’t intend to publicly condemn his remarks.

============================================================

Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same.

Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it.

We are in a war.

This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.

==================

If you agree with this,

Please send it to all your friends,

If not simply delete it.

  

  

YEAH MICHIGAN STATE !

 

Holding fast does not mean never failing. It means never giving up.

CAIR: Silence Any Voice Of Opposition Through Intimidation And Hatred

CAIR: Silence Any Voice Of Opposition Through Intimidation And Hatred

October 22nd, 2009 Posted By Pat Dollard.

cairbusted-vi

WorldNetDaily
By David Kupelian
Declaring the “flying imams” case – settled out-of-court yesterday in favor of the imams – to be as important to Muslims as the iconic Rosa Parks case was to blacks during the 1950s, the head of a controversial Islamic nonprofit organization in the nation’s capital revealed the strategy his organization embraced in pursuing the imam’s legal case: Sue everyone in sight, including passengers who, frightened by what they considered bizarre behavior, alerted authorities that a terror attack might be imminent.

When terrified passengers reported suspicious behavior on the part of seemingly unruly Muslims onboard the a US Airways Minneapolis-to-Phoenix flight, what they did “was uncalled for, it is pure discrimination, and pure prejudice on the part of those who reported the case, pure prejudice, and discriminatory attitude on the part of those who decided to inform the authorities to come and arrest them,” insisted Nihad Awad, the national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The comments were made at the Adams Center in Herndon Virginia, at an April 2007 meeting at which Awad and CAIR’S legal director were speaking about the six imams case. (Listen to audio of some of Awad’s comments below, courtesy of CSP-TV.)

The notorious case resulted when six Muslim clerics were booted off the Nov. 20, 2006, flight after engaging in behavior that alarmed passengers and crew members alike prior to takeoff. The imams reportedly prayed loudly in Arabic in the departure lounge, then once on board refused to sit in their assigned seats, instead fanning out in the cabin in pairs to occupy the front, middle and rear exit rows, ordered seat-belt extenders that weren’t needed, criticized President Bush and the Iraq war, talked about al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden and so on.

After being asked to deplane, missing their flight, being detained and questioned by law enforcement authorities for several hours and denied service on a later US Airways flight, the imams struck back.

In a high-profile lawsuit strategized and promoted by CAIR, as well as argued by a CAIR board-member attorney, Omar T. Mahammedi, the “flying imams” sued not only US Airways and the Minneapolis airport authority, but even the fearful passengers, or “John Does,” who had simply reported the suspicious activity.

After a congressional bill – drawn up specifically in response to CAIR’s and the imams’ insistence on suing regular citizens reporting suspicious activity – was passed, the passengers were dropped from the case. But Awad wasn’t too happy about that, condemning the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.:

“Now the allegation is that we are targeting innocent civilians,” Awad said. “What we are trying to do is target those that knowingly made false allegations because of their anti-Muslim sentiments. …

“Today you have people like Peter King, a Republican congressman, in the Congress, who after we filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Imams, issued a bill, protecting John Does, regular passengers, from being sued, if they, falsely even, falsely claim that a Muslim is suspect and has to be removed from a plane because they are praying … And he has some supporters in the Congress, to muddy the waters of this lawsuit …”

Although details of yesterday’s settlement are confidential, attorneys for both sides acknowledged that payment will be made to the imams.

“The settlement of this case is a clear victory for justice and civil rights over fear and the phenomenon of ‘flying while Muslim’ in the post-9/11 era,” Awad said in a post-settlement press statement.

Not so, says Paul Sperry, investigative journalist and co-author of the sensational new best-seller, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America,” which documents CAIR’s Saudi funding, radical ideology and ties to convicted terrorists. Moreover, the book documents conclusively that CAIR is a U.S. front for the notorious Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of al-Qaida and Hamas.

“CAIR brags this is a ‘victory for civil rights.’ It’s not a victory for civil rights,” Sperry said in response to the settlement. “It’s a victory for future hijackers. This settlement will have a chilling effect on law enforcement and security at our nation’s airports. Even pilots will now think twice about bouncing from flights any Arabs or Muslims acting suspiciously and threateningly.”

“The victims in the case are not the imams,” Sperry emphasized. “The victims are passengers who are now more vulnerable to terrorist attack – thanks to CAIR which according to documents revealed in ‘Muslim Mafia’ manipulated this whole case from the start,” he said.

Indeed, “Muslim Mafia” is based in part on research gathered during a daring, ACORN-style undercover operation – except this one lasted for six months, was very dangerous (CAIR has had close ties to a number of convicted terrorists), and resulted in the acquisition of 12,000 pages of internal CAIR documents. The lead undercover agent, Chris Gaubatz, who grew a beard, pretended to convert to Islam and became an intern at CAIR’s national headquarters, is the son of co-author P. David Gaubatz, a veteran Arabic-speaking former federal agent and terrorism investigator.

In the April 2007 meeting, Awad went beyond advocating suing fearful passengers. He advocated suing the press for covering the story:

“The Imams are going after those who caused this for them, that particular incident. The imams also have the right to sue the media, if the media misrepresented them, and that misrepresentation caused them harm. So this is like almost the first round.

“In the United States, people use free speech, First Amendment, to justify what they say. But there is a limit, and I think there are many lawyers who are looking into this, but the plain focus for the imams now, is to have legal recourse, against those who caused them immediate harm, they were rejected, uh…they were mistreated, they were arrested, and they were denied service.

“The Imams knew that this was a violation of their civil rights. It was uncalled for, it is pure discrimination, and pure prejudice on the part of those who reported the case, pure prejudice, and discriminatory attitude on the part of those who decided to inform the authorities to come and arrest them, it was a pure lack of professionalism and conduct on the part of the airport authority and the security agents arresting them, watching them, and causing this to be.”

What about the post-9/11 principle, so often drummed into Americans, that if they “see something,” to “say something” – in other words, to be willing to take a chance and report to authorities suspicious behavior?

“We support that when you see something, you say something,” said Awad. “But also we have to fight people who, when they don’t see something, they say something. And that’s what this lawsuit is about. People who do not … see something, but they see color, but they see Muslims, they see Arabs, they see people of different backgrounds, they don’t like them, they can just launch a false report to security agencies, and they just get you in trouble. It happens. It happened after 9/11 and so many people have been arrested unjustly because of false tips. So to conclude, I would like our community to be aware of this case, because if we win in this case, this is another historic moment in the United States, and this will go down in history, like Rosa Parks did 50 years ago. And it would be a defeat for prejudice, and it would be a defeat for those who trying to … subjugate the Muslim community, and silence any voice of opposition to discrimination and hatred.”

Awad’s aggressiveness and willingness to legally attack ordinary citizens was driven home a few months later when, on July 25, 2007, CAIR communications director Ibramim Hooper gave a particularly embarrassing performance on MSNBC, as recounted in “Muslim Mafia”:

Host Tucker Carlson got the best of Hooper during an interview about the case, and Hooper imploded, and he’s still stewing about it, insiders say.

Carlson, who’s now high on CAIR’s media enemies “hit” list, asked Hooper why CAIR was suing John Doe passengers for reporting suspicious behavior aboard a US Airways flight, when such legal action could scare other Americans into silence in the face of a terrorist threat.

CARLSON: Why are you supporting a lawsuit that would punish people for doing just that?

HOOPER: Because we’re not in support of malicious reporting.

CARLSON: How do you know it was malicious?

HOOPER: Well, that’s to be determined.

CARLSON: But you are supporting these people being sued. Their lives are disrupted.

HOOPER: That’s how you …

CARLSON: You are punishing them, and yet you don’t know it was malicious what they did?

Flustered and visibly agitated, Hooper could only raise his voice and talk over the host, which he did for the rest of the interview before closing with a snarky remark suggesting Carlson was an anti-Muslim bigot.

By suing John Doe passengers, say law enforcement officers, CAIR intimidated crew and passengers alike, possibly making them more reluctant to report suspicious behavior, “Muslim Mafia” reports. Though CAIR later dropped the claims against the tipsters, there may be a residual “chilling effect,” warned New York Police Department detective Edward Sloan, who added, ominously: “Acts of staged controversy could … be used to desensitize security personnel by making activity that common sense would deem suspicious instead seem routine and not worth any special effort.”

CAIR and the FBI

CAIR and the FBI
By: Jamie Glazov
Tuesday, June 23, 2009

 


Is the Bureau providing “cover” for the notorious Muslim “civil rights” group?

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dave Gaubatz, the first U.S. civilian (1811) Federal

Agent deployed to Iraq in 2003. He is the owner of DG Counter-terrorism Publishing. He is currently conducting a 50 State Counter-terrorism Research Tour (CTRT). He can be contacted at davegaubatz@gmail.com. 

 

FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

 

Just recently, Representative Frank Wolf stated he does not believe the FBI has completely answered his questions in regards to their relationship with CAIR.

 

In terms of the evidence you have gathered, is the FBI intentionally misleading not only Rep. Wolf, but the American public, and if so, why?

 

Gaubatz: Yes Jamie, FBI officials are intentionally misleading Rep. Wolf and I have first-hand evidence of this.

 

I will go one step further and state that the FBI and U.S. State Department have had very close and inappropriate relationships with CAIR and continue to maintain a “tight relationship.”

 

FP: What do you mean exactly?

 

Gaubatz: What I mean is that there are some FBI Agents who are Muslim and conduct off duty time with CAIR, Dar Al Hijrah, and ADAMS Center leaders. The relationships should remain professional, but based on evidence I have seen the relationship has crossed the line. CAIR refers to their FBI contacts as “Friends.” In addition, non-Muslim FBI Agents have crossed the line as well into more of a friendship than a professional relationship.

 

Again this is based on documentation between the FBI and CAIR that I have personally reviewed.

 

In regards to why the FBI will not answer Rep. Wolf’s entire question is because the FBI would be forced to lie if they answered completely. Some may be called to later testify to Congress and would be required to swear under oath.  Senior FBI officials know the relationship with CAIR has not been severed and the relationship between CAIR and the FBI continues, although more discreetly.

 

FP: How could Rep. Wolf obtain more specific information on the FBI’s relationship with CAIR?

 

Gaubatz: First of all, FBI officials should be keeping nothing from Rep. Wolf. Again they only do so because they do not want the public to know how close they were with CAIR’s senior leadership. If they had nothing to hide they would answer completely.  Rep. Wolf has been coordinating with the FBI HQ office in DC.  He should go directly to the Washington FBI Field Office (WFO). Agents from this office are the primary personnel who have conducted ‘liaison’ for many years with CAIR.  

 

The FBI HQ personnel are protecting personnel from the WFO and all documentation of their visits to CAIR National will be in this office. In addition there have been personnel from the WFO who have had many contacts with CAIR leadership that were not documented. These were informal meetings FBI personnel had not only with CAIR, but Islamic leaders from Dar al Hijrah (Falls Church)  and leaders from the ‘All Dulles Area Muslim Society’ (ADAMS).

 

Rep. Wolf is on the right track and he should understand CAIR, Dar Al Hijrah, and ADAMS are one in the same. These organizations have regular contact at the senior level and share intelligence. The leadership is predominately Sunni (Pure Muslim). Rep. Wolf mentioned Tawfik Hamid. Hamid is stepping forward with valuable intelligence on CAIR and he knows what I am referring to about when I say ‘Pure Muslim’. To define it for readers who do not understand it equates as sharing the same ideology as Islamic terrorist groups. The Islamic Ummah (Nation) under Sharia law is the primary objective and our FBI should have never had formal relations with any organization having ties with terrorists. By doing so it has provided ‘cover’ for CAIR and has allowed CAIR to use their close relationship with the FBI as justification to local, county, and state law enforcement agencies CAIR and mosques who support them are legitimate.

 

FP: Can you provide some more insight please?

 

Gaubatz: The FBI as with most large law enforcement departments have officers who are Muslim and naturally have strong ties to their respective mosques.  How many FBI agents in the Washington DC Field Office (WFO) and at the FBI HQ office are worshippers at Dar Al Hijrah or the ‘All Dulles Area Muslim Society’ (ADAMS)? Both Dar al Hijrah and the ADAMS center support CAIR. The prior volatile statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright are trivial in relation to the violent ideology being taught at both of these large Islamic Centers. If an agent goes to either of the mosques he/she knows what is being taught, and therefore condones the ideology. Unless you are President Obama, one can’t attend either of these Islamic Centers without understanding the ideology being taught. FBI agents or any other Law Enforcement officer can’t adhere to following the laws of a ‘man made government’ and the laws under Sharia at the same time. They contradict one another and a ‘Pure Muslim’ follows Sharia law first, and others lastly.

 

FP: So what should Rep. Wolf ask the FBI WFO?

 

Gaubatz: He should ask the following:

 

[1] Does this mean you no longer meet with any Islamic organization affiliated with CAIR?

 

[2] Does the FBI still meet with Islamic leaders/scholars in Virginia such as the ADAMS Center and Dar Al Hijrah?

 

[3] Do Muslim FBI Agents have informal meetings with CAIR executives?

 

[4] Does the FBI utilize officers from the JTTF to meet with CAIR and other Islamic leaders associated with CAIR to maintain liaison.

 

[5] Has the FBI discussed ‘behind the scenes’ and documented any professional work by an American citizen and counter-terrorism professional (Steve Emerson) with former CAIR attorney Shama Farooq or any of the following people: Seyed Rizwan Mowlana, Denyse Sabagh, or Mohammed Majid? Note: The FBI and all federal agencies are allowed to collect very limited intelligence on U.S. citizens. If the FBI personnel were documenting intelligence on a U.S. person (Mr. Emerson) and maintaining files on him, this is not only unethical, but illegal.

 

[6] Would the FBI be willing to explain to the American public the primary duties of Agents Michael A. Mason, Rouda Feghali, and Michael J. Anderson? Will they provide the public all documents/notes pertaining to any meeting they have had with AMSAC, CAIR, Dar Al Hijrah, or Adams Center leaders?

 

FP: What other important information should Rep. Wolfe obtain?

 

Gaubatz: He should obtain:

 

[1] The last ten FBI WFO notes of their meetings conducted under the name of Arab, Muslim and Sikh Advisory Council (AMSAC) meetings.

 

[2] The FBI notes of the 22 Feb 2005, 12 July 2005, and 16 Nov 2005, AMSAC meetings? Note: CAIR is a member and they took their own notes.

 

[3] Will the FBI provide the total number of terrorism investigations they have opened that resulted in a conviction based on information CAIR has provided, and also the number of allegations by CAIR pertaining to ‘hate crimes’.  Note: I can inform your  readers that CAIR has not provided any intelligence resulting in a conviction of any Muslim for any terrorism related offenses.  On the other hand, CAIR repeatedly reports alleged ‘hate crimes’ against U.S. persons and U.S. companies.

 

CAIR ‘uses’ the FBI for their own benefit, and not to protect America. CAIR and their affiliates use the FBI to promote their cultural/diversity training and to have ‘friends’ across America who they can contact anytime when the situation suits their goals.  The more ‘hate crimes’ (even if they are known to be false) CAIR reports to the FBI, the more money they will get from donors.

 

FP: You previously mentioned the U.S. State Department has a very close and un-professional relationship with CAIR. Can you explain?

 

Gaubatz: The U.S. State Department should also discontinue their relationship with CAIR. There are several State Department officials who visit CAIR National on a regular basis? Why? There are no legitimate reasons why State Department officials should be using taxpayer’s money to visit executives of a terrorist supporting organization. Many of these meetings are conducted at the CAIR National office.

 

I would add that if CAIR has nothing to hide they should turn over all of their meeting notes with the FBI and U.S. State Department officials. There will be a time in the not too distant future that many U.S. government personnel will have very tough questions asked of them.  I commend Rep. Wolf for his outstanding speech that has put not only the FBI, but CAIR on the ‘hot seat’.

 

FP: If Congress were to hold hearings on the relationship between the FBI, U.S. State Department, and CAIR, would you be willing to swear under oath your evidence on the above information?

 

Gaubatz: Yes, if the hearings were open to the public.

 

FP: Thanks Dave Gaubatz.

 

Gaubatz: Thank you Jamie. I want to add that we have thousands of well intentioned law enforcement officers in the FBI, but many have become unwitting victims of CAIR. Never underestimate the enemy and yes CAIR does represent the enemy.


Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the

McCain vs. Muslim Radicals

McCain vs. Muslim Radicals

By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/23/2008

Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. are outraged over remarks made last Friday by Bud Day, a key supporter of John McCain. Day, a much-decorated Air Force Colonel and Medal of Honor recipient who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam with McCain, said during a conference call organized by the Florida Republican Party that “the Muslims have said either we kneel, or they’re going to kill us.” Day added: “I don’t intend to kneel, and I don’t advocate to anybody that we kneel, and John doesn’t advocate to anybody that we kneel.”

The reaction was swift. Saif Ishoof, president of the Center for Voter Advocacy, said that Day’s remarks were “perpetuating a form of Islamophobia.” Khaled Saffuri, the Executive Director of the Islamic Institute (which he co-founded with Grover Norquist), was also deeply offended. “‘This is as close to racist as it gets,” he declared. “These are cheap street tactics. Even if this is called a mistake or a slip of the tongue, it shows a bigger problem with racism. McCain and the Republican party should denounce this.” (Keith Olbermann also termed Day’s words “racism and religious hatred,” although neither he nor Saffuri explained what race Islam is.)

Corey Saylor, national legislative director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), also called on McCain to distance himself from Day, stating that “CAIR would like to see Senator McCain come out and make a clear statement repudiating these remarks. We don’t believe they’re helpful at all in either putting out the campaign’s message or winning the hearts and minds in the Muslim world that America needs to be winning.”

However, a repudiation from McCain was not immediately forthcoming. McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb said only: “The threat we face is from radical Islamic extremism.” However, a spokeswoman for the Republican Party, according to the Miami Herald, “said later that Day acknowledged he misspoke and ‘made an unfortunate mistake’ because he meant to say ‘terrorists’ and not ‘Muslims.’ The Herald itself took for granted that Day had said something wrong, calling his remarks a “gaffe on Muslims.”

Unnoticed, however, in the controversy over Day’s remarks was the fact that what he said was essentially accurate. While it is certainly true that not all Muslims are trying to “make us kneel,” there can be no legitimate question whatsoever that there are indeed Muslims who are engaged in such an effort. The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States is, according to a Brotherhood operative, engaged in a “grand jihad” aimed at “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.”

What’s more, there is considerable reason to suspect that some of the Muslim leaders who have been most indignant over Day’s words are involved in this “grand jihad.” Investigative journalist Kenneth Timmerman wrote in 2004 of Khaled Saffuri’s considerable influence in Washington, and then noted that “some of the very people Saffuri introduced to Bush and Rove are in federal prison on terrorism-related charges. Others have been expelled from the country. Still other former colleagues and donors have become subjects of a massive federal probe into U.S. funding of terrorist organizations that is code-named Operation Greenquest….Saffuri’s ties to radical Islamists and apologists for terror are neither superficial nor coincidental.” And CAIR, of course, was in 2007 named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case, and has had several of its officials arrested and convicted on terrorism-related charges.

Why was none of this been mentioned in mainstream media coverage of this story? It isn’t really surprising that it wasn’t, given the tendencies and perspectives of the mainstream media – indeed, it would have been more surprising if they had mentioned it. But Bud Day’s remarks should have been judged for their accuracy: are there, or are there not, Muslims trying to make us kneel? No one would have objected in 1944 if a military spokesman had said that “the Germans are trying to make us kneel,” and someone who took offense to such a statement on the grounds that not all Germans were pro-Nazi would only have been ridiculed. However, CAIR has shown in the past that the accuracy of statements to which it takes umbrage does nothing to mitigate their hurt feelings. And now the primacy of hurt feelings has been enshrined into law in Canada: as we have seen in the Mark Steyn trials in Canada, truth and accuracy is no defense against charges of “hate speech.” In a sane world, instead of taking offense, Islamic spokesmen in the U.S. would have been assuring reporters that they were working energetically within Muslim communities against those who wished to make non-Muslims kneel. But sanity is at a premium in the public debate on Islamic jihad today.


Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His next book, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, is coming this November from Regnery Publishing

LONG BUT VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE: An Anatomy of Surrender: Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.

Bruce Bawer
An Anatomy of Surrender
Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.
Spring 2008

Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho­meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

The Western media are in the driver’s seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that we’re the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyn’s views on Islam, the killer insisted, were “dangerous.”

Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”

In June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This “stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacks—and that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.

Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoons—published in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Gogh’s murder—were answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam. Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he “knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ‘restraint’ was simple fear.” Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norway’s leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)

Last year brought another cartoon crisis—this time over Swedish artist Lars Vilks’s drawings of Mohammed as a dog, which ambassadors from Muslim countries used as an excuse to demand speech limits in Sweden. CNN reporter Paula Newton suggested that perhaps “Vilks should have known better” because of the Jyllands-Posten incident—as if people who make art should naturally take their marching orders from people who make death threats. Meanwhile, The Economist depicted Vilks as an eccentric who shouldn’t be taken “too seriously” and noted approvingly that Sweden’s prime minister, unlike Denmark’s, invited the ambassadors “in for a chat.”

The elite media regularly underreport fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature. After the knighting of Rushdie in 2007 unleashed yet another wave of international Islamist mayhem, Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “If you’re wondering why you haven’t been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it’s because there haven’t been any.” Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned them—and when they did, they de-emphasized the rioters’ Muslim identity (few cited the cries of “Allahu akbar,” for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice.

When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombing—even though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it. u.s. muslims assimilated, opposed to extremism, the Washington Post rejoiced, echoing USA Today’s american muslims reject extremes. A 2006 Daily Telegraph survey showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britain—yet British reporters often write as though only a minuscule minority embraced such views.

After each major terrorist act since 9/11, the press has dutifully published stories about Western Muslims fearing an “anti-Muslim backlash”—thus neatly shifting the focus from Islamists’ real acts of violence to non-Muslims’ imaginary ones. (These backlashes, of course, never materialize.) While books by Islam experts like Bat Ye’or and Robert Spencer, who tell difficult truths about jihad and sharia, go unreviewed in newspapers like the New York Times, the elite press legitimizes thinkers like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, whose sugarcoated representations of Islam should have been discredited for all time by 9/11. The Times described Armstrong’s hagiography of Mohammed as “a good place to start” learning about Islam; in July 2007, the Washington Post headlined a piece by Esposito want to understand islam? start here.

Mainstream outlets have also served up anodyne portraits of fundamentalist Muslim life. Witness Andrea Elliott’s affectionate three-part profile of a Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006. Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive, even beautiful. Though it emerged in passing that Shata didn’t speak English, refused to shake women’s hands, wanted to forbid music, and supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal particulars. “Islam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his grandmother’s voice”; “Mr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . . ‘She entered my heart,‘ said the imam.” Elliott’s saccharine piece won a Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review dismissed Pipes as “right-wing” and insisted that Shata was “very moderate.”

So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are “moderate” (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesn’t have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are “Islamophobes.”

The entertainment industry has been nearly as appalling. During World War II, Hollywood churned out scores of films that served the war effort, but today’s movies and TV shows, with very few exceptions, either tiptoe around Islam or whitewash it. In the whitewash category were two sitcoms that debuted in 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Little Mosque on the Prairie and CW’s Aliens in America. Both shows are about Muslims confronting anti-Muslim bigotry; both take it for granted that there’s no fundamentalist Islam problem in the West, but only an anti-Islam problem.

Muslim pressure groups have actively tried to keep movies and TV shows from portraying Islam as anything but a Religion of Peace. For example, the Council for American-Islamic Relations successfully lobbied Paramount Pictures to change the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears (2002) from Islamist terrorists to neo-Nazis, while Fox’s popular series 24, after Muslims complained about a story line depicting Islamic terrorists, ran cringe-worthy public-service announcements emphasizing how nonviolent Islam was. Earlier this year, Iranian-Danish actor Farshad Kholghi noted that, despite the cartoon controversy’s overwhelming impact on Denmark, “not a single movie has been made about the crisis, not a single play, not a single stand-up monologue.” Which, of course, is exactly what the cartoon jihadists wanted.

In April 2006, an episode of the animated series South Park admirably mocked the wave of self-censorship that followed the Jyllands-Posten crisis—but Comedy Central censored it, replacing an image of Mohammed with a black screen and an explanatory notice. According to series producer Anne Garefino, network executives frankly admitted that they were acting out of fear. “We were happy,” she told an interviewer, “that they didn’t try to claim that it was because of religious tolerance.”

Then there’s the art world. Postmodern artists who have always striven to shock and offend now maintain piously that Islam deserves “respect.” Museums and galleries have quietly taken down paintings that might upset Muslims and have put into storage manuscripts featuring images of Mohammed. London’s Whitechapel Art Gallery removed life-size nude dolls by surrealist artist Hans Bellmer from a 2006 exhibit just before its opening; the official excuse was “space constraints,” but the curator admitted that the real reason was fear that the nudity might offend the gallery’s Muslim neighbors. Last November, after the cancellation of a show in The Hague of artworks depicting gay men in Mohammed masks, the artist, Sooreh Hera, charged the museum with giving in to Muslim threats. Tim Marlow of London’s White Cube Gallery notes that such self-censorship by artists and museums is now common, though “very few people have explicitly admitted” it. British artist Grayson Perry, whose work has mercilessly mocked Christianity, is one who has—and his reluctance isn’t about multicultural sensitivity. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art,” he told the Times of London, “is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Leading liberal intellectuals and academics have shown a striking willingness to betray liberal values when it comes to pacifying Muslims. Back in 2001, Unni Wikan, a distinguished Norwegian cultural anthropologist and Islam expert, responded to the high rate of Muslim-on-infidel rape in Oslo by exhorting women to “realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

More recently, high-profile Europe experts Ian Buruma of Bard College and Timothy Garton Ash of Oxford, while furiously denying that they advocate cultural surrender, have embraced “accommodation,” which sounds like a distinction without a difference. In his book Murder in Amsterdam, Buruma approvingly quotes Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen’s call for “accommodation with the Muslims,” including those “who consciously discriminate against their women.” Sharia enshrines a Muslim man’s right to beat and rape his wife, to force marriages on his daughters, and to kill them if they resist. One wonders what female Muslims who immigrated to Europe to escape such barbarity think of this prescription.

Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and one of Britain’s best-known public intellectuals, suggested in February the institution of a parallel system of sharia law in Britain. Since the Islamic Sharia Council already adjudicates Muslim marriages and divorces in the U.K., what Williams was proposing was, as he put it, “a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resources.” Gratifyingly, his proposal, short on specifics and long on academic doublespeak (“I don’t think,” he told the BBC, “that we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights, simply because it doesn’t immediately fit with how we understand it”) was greeted with public outrage.

Another prominent accommodationist is humanities professor Mark Lilla of Columbia University, author of an August 2007 essay in the New York Times Magazine so long and languorous, and written with such perfect academic dispassion, that many readers may have finished it without realizing that it charted a path leading straight to sharia. Muslims’ “full reconciliation with modern liberal democracy cannot be expected,” Lilla wrote. For the West, “coping is the order of the day, not defending high principle.”

Revealing in this light is Buruma’s and Garton Ash’s treatment of author Ayaan Hirsi Ali—perhaps the greatest living champion of Western freedom in the face of creeping jihad—and of the Europe-based Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan. Because Hirsi Ali refuses to compromise on liberty, Garton Ash has called her a “simplistic . . . Enlightenment fundamentalist”—thus implicitly equating her with the Muslim fundamentalists who have threatened to kill her—while Buruma, in several New York Times pieces, has portrayed her as a petulant naif. (Both men have lately backed off somewhat.) On the other hand, the professors have rhapsodized over Ramadan’s supposed brilliance. They aren’t alone: though he’s clearly not the Westernized, urbane intellectual he seems to be—he refuses to condemn the stoning of adulteresses and clearly looks forward to a Europe under sharia—this grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and protégé of Islamist scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi regularly wins praise in bien-pensant circles as representing the best hope for long-term concord between Western Muslims and non-Muslims.

This spring, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, writing in the New York Times Magazine, actually gave two cheers for sharia. He contrasted it favorably with English common law, and described “the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law” as “bold and noble.”

With the press, the entertainment industry, and prominent liberal thinkers all refusing to defend basic Western liberties, it’s not surprising that our political leaders have been pusillanimous, too. After a tiny Oslo newspaper, Magazinet, reprinted the Danish cartoons in early 2006, jihadists burned Norwegian flags and set fire to Norway’s embassy in Syria. Instead of standing up to the vandals, Norwegian leaders turned on Magazinet’s editor, Vebjørn Selbekk, partially blaming him for the embassy burning and pressing him to apologize. He finally gave way at a government-sponsored press conference, groveling before an assemblage of imams whose leader publicly forgave him and placed him under his protection. On that terrible day, Selbekk later acknowledged, “Norway went a long way toward allowing freedom of speech to become the Islamists’ hostage.” As if that capitulation weren’t disgrace enough, an official Norwegian delegation then traveled to Qatar and implored Qaradawi—a defender of suicide bombers and the murder of Jewish children—to accept Selbekk’s apology. “To meet Yusuf al-Qaradawi under the present circumstances,” Norwegian-Iraqi writer Walid al-Kubaisi protested, was “tantamount to granting extreme Islamists . . . a right of joint consultation regarding how Norway should be governed.”

The UN’s position on the question of speech versus “respect” for Islam was clear—and utterly at odds with its founding value of promoting human rights. “You don’t joke about other people’s religion,” Kofi Annan lectured soon after the Magazinet incident, echoing the sermons of innumerable imams, “and you must respect what is holy for other people.” In October 2006, at a UN panel discussion called “Cartooning for Peace,” Under Secretary General Shashi Tharoor proposed drawing “a very thin blue UN line . . . between freedom and responsibility.” (Americans might be forgiven for wondering whether that line would strike through the First Amendment.) And in 2007, the UN’s Human Rights Council passed a Pakistani motion prohibiting defamation of religion.

Other Western government leaders have promoted the expansion of the Dar al-Islam. In September 2006, when philosophy teacher Robert Redeker went into hiding after receiving death threats over a Le Figaro op-ed on Islam, France’s then–prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, commented that “everyone has the right to express their opinions freely—at the same time that they respect others, of course.” The lesson of the Redeker affair, he said, was “how vigilant we must be to ensure that people fully respect one another in our society.” Villepin got a run for his money last year from his Swedish counterpart, Fredrik Reinfeldt, who, after meeting with Muslim ambassadors to discuss the Vilks cartoons, won praise from one of them, Algeria’s Merzak Bedjaoui, for his “spirit of appeasement.”

When, years after September 11, President George W. Bush finally acknowledged publicly that the West was at war with Islamic fascism, Muslims’ and multiculturalists’ furious reaction made him retreat to the empty term “war on terror.” Britain’s Foreign Office has since deemed even that phrase offensive and banned its use by cabinet members (along with “Islamic extremism”). In January, the Home Office decided that Islamic terrorism would henceforth be described as “anti-Islamic activity.”

Western legislatures and courts have reinforced the “spirit of appeasement.” In 2005, Norway’s parliament, with virtually no public discussion or media coverage, criminalized religious insults (and placed the burden of proof on the defendant). Last year, that country’s most celebrated lawyer, Tor Erling Staff, argued that the punishment for honor killing should be less than for other murders, because it’s arrogant for us to expect Muslim men to conform to our society’s norms. Also in 2007, in one of several instances in which magistrates sworn to uphold German law have followed sharia instead, a Frankfurt judge rejected a Muslim woman’s request for a quick divorce from her brutally abusive husband; after all, under the Koran he had the right to beat her.

Those who dare to defy the West’s new sharia-based strictures and speak their minds now risk prosecution in some countries. In 2006, legendary author Oriana Fallaci, dying of cancer, went on trial in Italy for slurring Islam; three years earlier, she had defended herself in a French court against a similar charge. (Fallaci was ultimately found not guilty in both cases.) More recently, Canadian provinces ordered publisher Ezra Levant and journalist Mark Steyn to face human rights tribunals, the former for reprinting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, the latter for writing critically about Islam in Maclean’s.

Even as Western authorities have hassled Islam’s critics, they’ve honored jihadists and their supporters. In 2005, Queen Elizabeth knighted Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, a man who had called for the death of Salman Rushdie. Also that year, London mayor Ken Livingstone ludicrously praised Qaradawi as “progressive”—and, in response to gay activists who pointed out that Qaradawi had defended the death penalty for homosexuals, issued a dissertation-length dossier whitewashing the Sunni scholar and trying to blacken the activists’ reputations. Of all the West’s leaders, however, few can hold a candle to Piet Hein Donner, who in 2006, as Dutch minister of justice, said that if voters wanted to bring sharia to the Netherlands—where Muslims will soon be a majority in major cities—“it would be a disgrace to say, ‘This is not permitted!’ ”

If you don’t find the dhimmification of politicians shocking, consider the degree to which law enforcement officers have yielded to Islamist pressure. Last year, when “Undercover Mosque,” an unusually frank exposé on Britain’s Channel 4, showed “moderate” Muslim preachers calling for the beating of wives and daughters and the murder of gays and apostates, police leaped into action—reporting the station to the government communications authority, Ofcom, for stirring up racial hatred. (Ofcom, to its credit, rejected the complaint.) The police reaction, as James Forsyth noted in the Spectator, “revealed a mindset that views the exposure of a problem as more of a problem than the problem itself.” Only days after the “Undercover Mosque” broadcast—in a colossal mark of indifference to the reality that it exposed—Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair announced plans to share antiterrorist intelligence with Muslim community leaders. These plans, fortunately, were later shelved.

Canadian Muslim reformist Irshad Manji has noted that in 2006, when 17 terrorists were arrested in Toronto on the verge of giving Canada “its own 9/11,” “the police did not mention that it had anything to do with Islam or Muslims, not a word.” When, after van Gogh’s murder, a Rotterdam artist drew a street mural featuring an angel and the words thou shalt not kill, police, fearing Muslim displeasure, destroyed the mural (and a videotape of its destruction). In July 2007, a planned TV appeal by British cops to help capture a Muslim rapist was canceled to avoid “racist backlash.” And in August, the Times of London reported that “Asian” men (British code for “Muslims”) in the U.K. were having sex with perhaps hundreds of “white girls as young as twelve”—but that authorities wouldn’t take action for fear of “upsetting race relations.” Typically, neither the Times nor government officials acknowledged that the “Asian” men’s contempt for the “white” girls was a matter not of race but of religion.

Even military leaders aren’t immune. In 2005, columnist Diana West noted that America’s Iraq commander, Lieutenant General John R. Vines, was educating his staff in Islam by giving them a reading list that “whitewashes jihad, dhimmitude and sharia law with the works of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito”; two years later, West noted the unwillingness of a counterinsurgency advisor, Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen, to mention jihad. In January 2008, the Pentagon fired Stephen Coughlin, its resident expert on sharia and jihad; reportedly, his acknowledgment that terrorism was motivated by jihad had antagonized an influential Muslim aide. “That Coughlin’s analyses would even be considered ‘controversial,’ ” wrote Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, “is pathognomonic of the intellectual and moral rot plaguing our efforts to combat global terrorism.” (Perhaps owing to public outcry, officials announced in February that Coughlin would not be dismissed after all, but instead moved to another Department of Defense position.)

Enough. We need to recognize that the cultural jihadists hate our freedoms because those freedoms defy sharia, which they’re determined to impose on us. So far, they have been far less successful at rolling back freedom of speech and other liberties in the U.S. than in Europe, thanks in no small part to the First Amendment. Yet America is proving increasingly susceptible to their pressures.

The key question for Westerners is: Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them? Many free people, alas, have become so accustomed to freedom, and to the comfortable position of not having to stand up for it, that they’re incapable of defending it when it’s imperiled—or even, in many cases, of recognizing that it is imperiled. As for Muslims living in the West, surveys suggest that many of them, though not actively involved in jihad, are prepared to look on passively—and some, approvingly—while their coreligionists drag the Western world into the House of Submission.

But we certainly can’t expect them to take a stand for liberty if we don’t stand up for it ourselves.

Bruce Bawer is the author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within. He blogs at BruceBawer.com.

 

 

 

Some CAIR Officials Convicted of Crimes, More Tied to Extremist Groups