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.


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.

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:

URL to article:

URLs in this post:

[1] Bosnian Relief Committee:

[2] Chairman Emeritus:

[3] contemplated setting up a website asking for volunteers to sign up to attack Israel:

[4] urge people to attend court in support of Salah:

[5] Americans Against Hate:

[6] CAIR Watch:

[7] Young Zionists:

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.


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.





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.


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.”

McCain vs. Muslim Radicals

McCain vs. Muslim Radicals

By Robert Spencer | 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

Muslim Extremism in America

Muslim Extremism in America

A Suggested Agenda for Congressional Hearings

by Jerry Gordon, New English Review, June 2, 2007

Last summer during his successful re-election campaign in Connecticut as an Independent, Senator Joe Lieberman read Bruce Bawer’s book, While Europe Slept. He was shocked at what he learned about the looming Islamization occurring in what many have taken to call Eurabia-after Islamic scholar Bat Ye’or’s book of the same name. This topic emerged during his campaign speeches on foreign policy and homeland security keyed off of the Senator’s role as a co-sponsor of the 9/11 review Commission. As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC), the Senator and his staff have scheduled a series of ‘exploratory hearings’ on this vital and important topic.

Posted by Jerry Gordon @ 3:24 pm |

CAIR: Islamism Is Islam

CAIR: Islamism Is Islam

By Joe Kaufman | May 29, 2007

Last month, the National Chairman of CAIR, Parvez Ahmed, took a trip to Qatar, where he was invited to speak at the 7th Doha Forum on Democracy, Development and Free Trade.  The message that he brought with him was duplicitous.  On the one hand, he stated that the
U.S. needs to “engage” with the religious elements of the Muslim world.  On the other, he said that the
U.S. must “engage” with Hamas.  Was Ahmed saying that Hamas, a terrorist organization, was the equivalent of a legitimate Muslim religious body, the religious element he was speaking of?  If his talks and writings, during and after the conference, are any indication, we are provided with no other conclusion but yes.

On April 24, 2007, the day he was set to speak at the conference, he appeared on Al-Jazeera television.  When asked why, after receiving so much aid from America, that America is viewed by the Muslim world as “the enemy of Islam,” Ahmed stated, “[W]hen U.S. policies lead to killings and bombings as in Iraq, or the continued occupation as in Palestine, or even Afghanistan where the Taliban is reforming and there is a lot of violence, or the U.S. is not engaging with the democratic regimes – We’re talking about democratization in the Middle-East, but the most freely and fairly elected government in the Middle-East, which is the Palestinian government, the U.S. government is not engaging with them.”


Not delving too far in depth with his answer, the latter part regarding the Palestinian government, no doubt, alluded to Hamas, which the
United States has refused to deal with, for reasons that cannot be argued.  The organization perpetrates brutal attacks against innocent civilians, many times via suicide bombings.  It raises children, from infancy, into a culture of death.  It quotes Islamic rulings for wiping out Jews and
Israel.  It has threatened
America with violence, and a number of its victims have been American citizens.  As you read, this “democratic regime” that Ahmed wants the U.S. to dialogue with
continues to fire rockets into Israel and continues to murder members of its rival terrorist party, Fattah.


Ahmed went on to say, “What the
U.S. government needs to do is to recognize that there is a big paradigm shift in the Muslim world.  The population is young, it’s restless, it is more religiously oriented.  This religiosity needs to be engaged.”

According to Ahmed, Hamas needs to be engaged, while the religious need to be engaged.  Are they one and the same? 

The day prior to his interview, on April 23rd, Ahmed posted on his blog his thoughts about his trip to
Qatar.  He titled the piece, ‘
Democracy, Sure but on Whose Terms?  In it, he discussed meetings he had had with Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a former opposition candidate to Hosni Mubarak for President of Egypt, who in June of 2005 said, “
I advise anyone who is interested in democracy to take up the dialogue with the Islamists, whether they operate inside or outside the Arab world… It’s hypocrisy to want to promote democracy while excluding these movements from it… Movements like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood have gained their legitimacy through their social projects and their political positions.”


In his blog post, Ahmed mimicked Ibrahim’s words, by stating, “The appeal of the Islamists is so strong in the
Middle East that it is difficult to imagine a viable democratic society without their cooperation.”

Fast forward six days to April 29th, in an op-ed written by Ahmed for the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel entitled, ‘Change Needed.’  He stated, “The appeal of Islam is so strong in the
Middle East that it is difficult to imagine a viable democratic society without an Islamic component.”

Carefully reading the preceding two paragraphs leads one to discover a striking difference.  In the first, Ahmed said “the appeal of the Islamists,” and he finished it with “without their cooperation,” meaning without the Islamists’ cooperation.  In the second, he said “the appeal of Islam” and finished it with “without an Islamic component,” meaning without a religious component. 

This seems to be more than just Ahmed changing the words to hide the truth from the readers, something that Ahmed’s organization, CAIR, does frequently.  What he was saying, just as in the previous statements equating Hamas with Muslim religious groups, was that Islamism, a fanatic political movement, is the same as Islam, that they are interchangeable with one another. 

What we also learn from this is that Ahmed, himself, is a radical Muslim, because, whether what he said was true or not, only a Muslim that has been radicalized would formulate such equations regarding his/her Islamic faith.  There is no surprise with this, though, as Ahmed is the leader of an organization that has intimate ties to Hamas, an organization that was created by a Hamas front, an organization that solicited money for Hamas charities, an organization whose Executive Director said he supports Hamas, an organization that had one of its leaders convicted for Hamas-related crimes, and an organization that repeatedly refuses to condemn Hamas as a terrorist group. 

Being as such, Ahmed did not do anything strange by making the statements.  He only proved to us what we already knew to be the case.One final message Parvez Ahmed offered in Qatar was that he believed the United States needs to utilize American Muslim groups (i.e. CAIR) as intermediaries between the
U.S. and the Muslim world.
  One can only imagine the consequences of such a plan, if put into action.  How far would we have to go, in order to appease our enemies, and how many freedoms would we be willing to negotiate away to terrorists, in the name of dialogue?

Click Here to support

CAIR by the Numbers

CAIR by the Numbers
By Patrick Poole | May 24, 2007

Last week the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released their 2006 Annual Report, which provides some interesting information to outside observers of the radical Islamic front group. Back in February, I noted in an article here at FrontPage, “Numbers Don’t Lie”, that despite CAIR’s claims to be “the largest Islamic civil rights organization in
America”, the facts hardly match their propaganda. In that article I wrote: 

An inspection of CAIR’s most recent publicly available IRS Form 990 (2004) shows for that year they received $119,029 in membership dues for that year (line 3). But at $25 per membership (the current rate is $35), that would mean that in 2004, CAIR only had 4,761 dues-paying members – less than 5,000 members out of 8 million Muslims in
America. This would mean that CAIR only represents 1 out of every 1,680 Muslims. Even if a lower 6 million Muslim population figure were assumed, CAIR would still only be able to claim representation for 1 out of every 1,260 Muslims for that year.

But their new 2006 Annual Report and their recently posted 2005 IRS Form 990 shows that CAIR continues to hemorrhage members. Whereas my estimates for 2004 showed that based on their membership receipts in that period they had approximately 4,761 dues-paying members, in 2005 their membership plummeted dramatically to an estimated 2,615. This puts CAIR on the same comparative membership level as the American Indian Kaw Nation in Kansas, the Cleveland Section of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, the Society for News Design, the University of Texas Longhorn Alumni Band, and the South Dakota chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), none of whom are consulted near as frequently by Beltway politicians or sought after for comment by the media establishment as CAIR.


The steep decline in CAIR membership is directly correlated in membership receipts (line 3 of the Form 990), which dropped off from $119,029 in 2004 to $65,377 – a decrease of $53,652, or almost half (45 percent) of the previous year’s membership revenues. If this trend continues at the same pace, their 2006 Form 990 numbers will show $29,419 in membership revenues, representing only 1,177 members, roughly comparable to the membership of the Genealogical Society of Rockingham County, Virginia and the Garden Club of Tacoma, Washington – neither of which has a
Washington DC lobbying office.


Another startling statistic drawn from CAIR’s 2006 Annual Report (page 23, “CAIR Financial Activity Report”) is that the organization, which lists its mission as “civil rights and advocacy”, only commits 9 percent of program services to civil rights and 10 percent to government affairs – less than one-fifth of their program expenditures. With $1,891,290 spent on program services, this means that only $359,345 (19 percent) was spent on its core mission, $135,013 less than what was spent on fundraising and events by the group ($494,358).


In another bizarre twist, CAIR also reports (page 23) that 7 percent of its program service expenditures ($132,390) were spent on their membership; yet by its own admission, it only collected $58,750 in membership dues for that period, a net loss of $73,640.


To its credit, CAIR’s IRS Form 990s report that they do make money on their annual fundraising banquets, but just barely. At their 10th Annual Fundraising Banquet in 2004, the event grossed $170,389 in contributions and banquet fees, but paid out $152,917 in expenses, meaning that the group raised a mere $17,472 from the event. In 2005, their annual fundraiser grossed $132,421, almost one-quarter less (23 percent) than the year before, but only had $106,979 in expenses, netting the group $25,442 in funds raised during the event. The drop in membership may be responsible for the drop attendance at the fundraisers: in 2004, more than 1,100 people showed up at the event; by 2006, the annual report states that only around 1,000 attendees were present.


Since representatives from CAIR have identified their organization as “the Islamic NAACP”, a comparison between CAIR and the NAACP might be helpful. In the same period (2005) that CAIR brought in $65,377 in membership revenue purporting to represent 7 million Muslims, the NAACP received $3.317 million from a population of approximately 40 million African-Americans. Even after adjusting for the population size differences between the two, CAIR’s membership footprint amongst their constituency is still is only one-tenth that of the NAACP. CAIR, you are no NAACP.


Also seen in the 2004 and 2005 IRS Form 990s is that direct contributions to the organization (line 1) also saw a sharp decline, dropping from $2,166,270 in 2004 to $1,667,057 in 2005, losing almost one-quarter (23 percent) of their contributions from the previous year.


CAIR supporters might note that those reports indicate an increase of $332,871 in spending on program services (line 13) – a leap of almost one-quarter from the previous year (24.1 percent) – but that number was achieved only by shifting $335,465 from management and general expenses (line 14) between years. Meanwhile, fundraising expenses (line 15) more than doubled, from $262,914 in 2004 to $535,555 in 2005 (a $272,641 increase).


The grim portrait painted by this new financial information shows not only an organization in dire crisis, but also a stark contrast to CAIR’s public rhetoric. Even though it still claims to represent “the interests of more than seven million American Muslims”, in fact, its supporters in the American Muslim community are barely a handful. And its footprint amongst that community is shrinking rapidly. Based on my membership estimates, we find that CAIR actually only represents 1 out of every 2,676 Muslims in the most recent period that information is available, as opposed to 1 in every 1,680 the year before.


Paradoxically, at the very moment that their representation amongst their own constituency is plummeting, CAIR’s stock among political and the media establishment continues to climb. If Wall Street rules applied to K Street, someone would be in jail for inflating their stock. Policymakers and pundits alike would do well to look at CAIR by the numbers rather than by their noise. What they would discover is that American Muslims are abandoning CAIR en masse, and the numbers still don’t lie.

Click Here to support

CAIR must be outed and defeated

CAIR must be outed and defeated

Stephen Schwartz, a well known convert to Islam, and a proponent of moderate Islam as the solution takes on CAIR. Is their no way that CAIR can be outlawed as a subversive organization.


But finally, CAIR will be defeated only by a multi-faceted campaign to provide government and media with an authoritative and comprehensive moderate Muslim alternative to CAIR and its ideology, offering a completely different agenda from that of CAIR – one that is loyal to Western governing institutions and committed to a genuinely American expression of Islam.

[..] If the agenda of the Stalinists and Wahhabis in America seems identical, so has the camouflage. For decades the American Communists claimed to be the only consistent defenders of civil rights for Blacks and other minorities. However, when support for African Americans conflicted with Soviet orders, the Communists denounced civil rights advocates – as late as the 1960s they tried to turn Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. against the long-serving but anti-Communist Black leaders and intellectuals, A Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, and James Baldwin. Today, I believe, CAIR poses as a civil-liberties agency when its real task is to exclude and suppress moderate Sunni and other non-Wahhabi Muslims, keeping them out of mosques, academia, and other public institutions.

How do we defeat CAIR?

The counter-jihad against CAIR requires much more than reaction to it. Trying to reply to CAIR’s efforts after they are accomplished provides little help. Improvised polemics by individuals ignorant of Islam, “clever” tricks, or speculative lawsuits may do more harm than good, by reinforcing CAIR’s self-image as a guardian of American Muslims against discrimination.

Educating the non-Muslim public about CAIR’s real program is necessary, and can help win the struggle, as was seen when U.S. Senator from California Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, repudiated an endorsement extended to CAIR. Actively lobbying the DOJ and DHS to exclude CAIR from its consultations will also prove effective.

But finally, CAIR will be defeated only by a multi-faceted campaign to provide government and media with an authoritative and comprehensive moderate Muslim alternative to CAIR and its ideology, offering a completely different agenda from that of CAIR – one that is loyal to Western governing institutions and committed to a genuinely American expression of Islam.

American Communism was defeated when outstanding liberals, progressives, labor organizers, sincere pacifists, and legitimate social protest leaders turned against it.

CAIR will be defeated as outstanding Muslim representatives, including imams, teachers, and community activists repudiate it.

Like the Stalinists, if not in direct imitation of them, CAIR obviously knows how to work the American system to its benefit. The American Communists prevailed on the U.S. Supreme Court to find that a network that had actively recruited spies, traitors, and terrorists should still enjoy full constitutional rights of advocacy for its beliefs, absent a clear and present danger that the government would be overthrown. As I recently learned from a member of a delegation of Western European Muslims visiting the U.S. as guests of the State Department, CAIR representatives, to whom State also took the visitors (!) praised American democracy because it allows the American Wahhabis to promote radical Islam with full constitutional protection.

American Communists agitated against inequality but spent most of their time ostracizing and even murdering their critics in the American progressive and labor milieux. While no murder on American soil can be pinned on CAIR, the Wahhabi organization also considers its highest priority to be discrediting its moderate Muslim critics.

I will claim no false modesty in noting that I am one of the individuals CAIR most wishes to disparage. A little more than a year ago, in March 2006, CAIR’s Chicago director, Ahmed Rehab, circulated an internal memorandum calling for opposition research against me, to be publicized by a clandestine unit ostensibly “independent” of CAIR. Once again, CAIR seems to have taken a page from the Stalinist handbook, in seeking to establish a “front group” separate from the directing entity, dedicated to defamation and intimidation of its critics.

Unfortunately for the American Wahhabis, I am a published author, journalist and speaker and my biography is public. Efforts to smear me because of my long experience as a literary nonconformist – something I have no intention of disavowing – as well as my leftist past, have failed, as have comical attempts to portray me as a secret jihadist. [I previously dealt with Rehab for FSM, the antidote to the MSM, on December 20, 2006 and January 10, 2007. His 2006 memorandum is available here:

More recently, a Detroit mosque member took notes during a speech by CAIR Michigan director Dawud Walid and sent them to me. In his diatribe, Walid removed the mask. He whined that Arabs are the main victims of anti-Muslim feelings, and denounced Balkan and other non-Arab Muslims, as well as Iraqi Shia Muslims, who are strongly represented in the Detroit area, for maintaining their separate identities, even though anybody who knows Islam recognizes that like Christianity and Judaism, it takes different cultural forms around the world.

Walid went on to describe Muslims in “the Philippines, Kashmir, Iraq, Somalia, and Algeria” – and only these countries, in all of which terrorism is a serious problem – as future victims of “humiliation.” He threatened further terrorism in Iraq as a response to U.S.-led attempts to keep Sunnis and Shias from fighting. He also railed against those he called “neo-Sufis,” a strange usage that could refer to the adherents of a new form of Islamic spiritualism, but is probably intended to equate certain Sufi critics of radical Islam, like myself, with neoconservatism. Walid also bragged that as an African American Muslim, he can “get away” with saying things publicly that immigrant Muslims cannot – presumably, a reference to CAIR’s avowal that it seeks to Islamize America in accord with Wahhabi ideology. Finally, Walid denounced as Zionist propaganda the mass protests over the atrocities committed in Darfur.

That is, from my standpoint, the real CAIR – not a protector of civil rights, but a network dedicated to Arab supremacy in Islam, even on American territory, to the suppression of non-Arab Muslim traditions, to a legal cover for radical incitement, to slander against spiritual Muslims, and to Jew-baiting.

Nevertheless, CAIR is feeling the heat – otherwise, it would spend no time on opposition research and public campaigning against its moderate Muslim adversaries. The heat should be turned up, both inside and outside America. American and Canadian Muslim leaders can be organized against CAIR. Its main foreign backer, Saudi Arabia, may be compelled, as part of the process of reform, to cut off funding to it and other Wahhabi and radical Sunni groups around the world. CAIR may then be relegated, like American Communism, to the dustbin of history.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 7:51 am |