Here is Daniel Pipes on CAIR, taken from a generally good writeup on him in Harvard Magazine (thanks to all who sent this in):
The true obstacle to bridging differences in the United States, he repeats, is Islamism, principally its "worst, most aggressive, and most prominent" practitioner, CAIR. "CAIR and I are engaged in an effort of mutual delegitimation, and it gets vicious. In 2000 they bought a website with my name [DanielPipes. com] and posted one calumny after another. [CAIR allowed the website to lapse after Pipes threatened legal action.] These lies were reprinted in various Muslim publications, and I got barrages of hate mail, including threats." CAIR, he asserts, "tries to present itself as a civil-rights group, the Muslim equivalent of the NAACP. But CAIR, with Saudi financing, is the attack dog of Islamist institutions in the United States. CAIR has two primary goals: to help build Hamas against Israel and to promote militant Islam's agenda here. Its people are all over the place, extremely active, but they are the totalitarians among us, the front for the enemy in this country, and they should be shunned, as David Duke or Louis Farrakhan is shunned." In fact, three CAIR staff members—Ismail Royer, Ghasan Elashi, and Bassem Khafagi—have been convicted on mail fraud and terrorism-related charges.
Note also this:
In a scathing article for Commentary, "Jihad and the Professors," he reported that a survey he made of media comments by some two dozen academics had turned up definitions ranging from "a struggle against our own myopia and neglect" to "resisting apartheid or working for women's rights." For example, he quoted David Mitten, Loeb professor of classical art and archaeology, a convert to Islam and faculty adviser to the Harvard Islamic Society, as saying that true jihad is "the constant struggle of Muslims to conquer their inner base instincts, to follow the path to God, and to do good in society." Three years later, Mitten says, "Sure. I'll stand by that quote. This is what is called greater jihad, dating to the eleventh century, and is superior to lesser or militaristic jihad, extracted by Osama and Zarqawi for their own dastardly purposes. We knew Zayid's speech would be controversial; the word is inflammatory, but he wanted people to understand the real meaning of greater jihad.""But of course," Pipes erupted in his article, "it is precisely bin Laden, Islamic Jihad, and the jihadists worldwide who define the term, not a covey of academic apologists. More importantly, the way the jihadists understand the term is in keeping with its usage through fourteen centuries of Islamic history."
And that definition, he continued, to the majority of Muslims meant, and means, "the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims (known in Arabic as dar al-Islam) at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims (dar al-harb)." Khaleel Mohammed agrees. "The normative meaning has become war—whether expansionist or defensive," he writes. "The academic professors at Harvard, et cetera, often confuse their Islamica and their political thought." Tashbih Sayyed goes even further: "When the apologists talk about greater jihad or lesser jihad, they are basically playing with words. If it is so and jihad is good deeds or good thoughts, then why do they never call their thinkers mujahadin, holy warriors? Why are only those people who wage war with swords and behead non-Muslims glorified as mujahadin?"
Pipes does acknowledge the concept of greater or higher jihad, which he says is usually associated with Sufism and with the reformist approach to Islam that "reinterpret[s] Islam to make it compatible with Western ways." But he calls this approach "wholly apologetic," owing "far more to Western than to Islamic thinking."
Daniel Pipes' virtual library on CAIR:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/394
Andrew Whitehead's ACAIR:
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
Pipes is a good man.
Forced to buildup an illusion of 'mpderate islam' just so in order to defend himself from viciousness, methinks he's well aware of the truth. that there is no moderation is islam.
He's done more than many of his opponents will ever do to spread the light of truth about islam.
Bravo, Daniel pipes!
I can't believe that the argument over what jihad means still goes on.
Maybe if a few journalists from lefty Media would get off their faces, err, I mean butts, and do a little research they would find that Muhammad the pedophile was quite clear about what Jihad is.
Well, when a bomb goes off in my son's school, I'll remember that someone was only trying to subdue his own inner demons and "understand".
Much as I like the life of the mind, I think we "understand" a little too much.
Thank you, Pipes and Spencer, for helping us really understand!
***LATEST ANTI-CAIR NEWS & ANALYSIS 12/21/04***
In Defense of the Constitution
Anti-CAIR News & Analysis 041/04
December 21, 2004
- CAIR: Defending Your Right to Free Speech?
On the Anti-CAIR web site, you will find the following warning posted on the bottom of each archived Press Release and News & Analysis:
"ADVISORY:
Subscribers are warned that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) may contact your employer if CAIR believes you are using a work address to receive any material that CAIR believes may be offensive. CAIR has been known to shame employers into firing employees CAIR finds disagreeable. For that reason, we strongly suggest that corporate e-mail users NOT use a corporate e-mail account/address when communicating with ACAIR or CAIR. We make every reasonable effort to protect our mailing list, but we cannot guarantee confidentiality. ACAIR does not share, loan, sell, rent or otherwise publicize our mailing list. We respect your privacy!"
ACAIR placed that advisory on our postings because CAIR has contacted businesses and corporate e-mail hosts in an effort to silence employees who exercise their First Amendment rights from work, use company e-mail addresses to comment on CAIR's statements and activities.
ACAIR has been contacted by several people whom claimed to be subjected to CAIR harassment. One writer has agreed to allow us to show you how this self-described "Muslim Civil Rights Group" goes about trying to impose the Iranian or Saudi view of free speech (i.e., there is none) on those Americans who dare to express their views.
In August, 2004, the following e-mail was sent to CAIR:
Subject: Imam Ali Shrine
>From Your Web Site:
U.S. Muslims Urge End to Fighting Near Iraqi Shrine
CAIR says attack would harm America's image in Islamic world
A prominent national civil rights and advocacy group today said a U.S. attack on the Imam Ali Shrine in the Iraqi city of Najaf would harm America's image in the Muslim world and called for negotiations to end the fighting.
RESPONSE
The unprovoked Muslim attack on America the killed 3,000+ people harmed the Islamic image in the CIVILIZED world.
The Islamic radicals must be destroyed. Their leader has an arrest warrant issued by Iraqi courts. He is a criminal that is using "holy" sites as protection.clear violation of Geneva Conventions. Any attacks from "holy" sites or storage of weapons in such makes them "fair game" for attacks or retaliation.
Negotiations???? Surely you jest. You people called for a cease fire, which we honored, BUT the radicals did not. They used the respite to rearm and reorganize.
It is hard to conceive of a so-called "religion of peace" being filled with such hatred.
In the above, do we see any evidence of insulting Islam? Imputing of criminal or terrorist intent onto the US/Canadian Muslim community? Gratuitous name-calling or ethnic/religious insults? No?
Then why did CAIR send the following e-mail to the writer's employer?
Subject: is this e-mail representative of your company?
Peace.
CAIR receive the following hostile e-mail apparently from a (company name) employee. Does its content reflect your company's views?
Ibrahim Hooper
National Communications Director
www.cair-net.org
202-488-8787
(The writers e-mail was inserted here)
On August 16, 2004, CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper called the writer's employer and left a message on his voice mail.Hooper wanted to know if the writer's e-mail reflected company policy and asked the employer to call Hooper. The boss asked the writer about the e-mail and the mix-up in the e-mail address was explained. The writer then explained a little about CAIR's activities and shared his personal opinions regarding CAIR. The boss listened, agreed with the employee and said he had no intention of calling "this guy" back. He finished by saying he did not want some terrorist blowing up the building.
The employee then responded to CAIR:
Subject: Attn: Ibrahim Hooper
Peace.
I was speaking for myself. just forgot to change to email account to my personal account. And no it did not get me "into trouble" as I am sure you hoped it would. You have the audacity to call my email hostile?
I notice you did not respond to my comments. This is so typical. As "Communications Director", I would expect a high profile NATIONAL response to the evil that is being perpetrated by Muslims world wide. If CAIR does not accept this evil, why are PROMINENT members of your faith not getting out the "truth". Silence sometimes speaks louder than words.
Do you deny that the cleric that has set up his battle station in the Holy site is not wanted as a criminal under Iraqi law?
Do you deny that is trying to upset the move to democracy in Iraq?
Do you deny that the Geneva Convention forbids using churches, mosques, temples, etc as a haven for battle sites and storage of weaponry?
Do you deny that Imams the world over are teaching hatred on non-muslims, expecially Americans?
Do you deny that is was muslims that attacked us on 911?
Do you deny that is was muslims that attacked the USS Cole?
What about the Kobar Towers?
Speaking "Peace" is on thing and easy to do. living a life of peace is quite another. Do you have the courage to answer my questions? Do you have the courage to LIVE a life of peace and acceptance of those other than muslims?
Hooper did not, or could not, answer. It seems to ACAIR that Hooper is a "free speech bully": he threatens and tries to intimidate Americans into silence, but is actually absolutely terrified of a free exchange of ideas or facts. Why are you so afraid, Doug? Is it because the philosophy of Muslim extremism, as practiced by those who in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who fund CAIR simply can't stand the sunlight of public debate and objective scrutiny? Why are you afraid of the truth?
CAIR claims it supports civil rights.but its actions, in ACAIR's opinion, demonstrate that it is hostile to the First Amendment guarantee of free speech that is the bedrock for the United States Constitution, and to many of the Judeo-Christian values that have made the U.S. what it is today. ACAIR believes the facts show CAIR hates free expression and free speech, and that if it had the power of the mullahs and autocrats in Iran/Saudi/Gaza, it would treat its critics, and critics of Muslim violence, in the same way. ACAIR asks what next, CAIR? Are you going to decree that anyone who criticizes you or Muslims should be treated just like the writer Salomon Rushdie, who had a death sentence placed on his head?
ACAIR wonders why CAIR is so allergic to criticism, and afraid of free speech and open debate? ACAIR asks why does CAIR try to impose the oppression common in Saudi Arabia or Syria on Americans, here in the U.S.? And ACAIR asks:
Why isn't this question being asked by the "mainstream" media?
Andrew Whitehead
Director, Anti-CAIR (ACAIR)
Stockton CA
Sorry for the long post, but AW hasn't put this on his website yet, otherwise I would've just provided the link.