A CAIR press release entitled "Neocon Mag Promotes Anti-Muslim Hate Literature; CAIR Seeks Clarification, Apology from National Review" says this:
WASHINGTON, March 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on a prominent national neoconservative magazine to clarify its policy on anti-Muslim hate following revelations that the publication distributed an Internet advertisement for an virulently Islamophobic book.CAIR's request came in response to a complaint from a member of the National Review's e-mail list who received a message promoting an apparently self-published book that, according to the magazine, is a "guide into the dark mind of (the Prophet) Mohammed."
The National Review's review of the book states: "(The author) explains why Mohammed couldn't possibly be a true prophet, and reveals the true sources of his 'revelations.'"
It quotes the author as claiming: "Mohammed posed as the apostle of God...while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful butcheries, all the time invoking God's holy name to sanction his evil deeds."
According to the National Review, the book shows how "Mohammed again and again justified his rapine and licentiousness with new 'divine revelations.'"
"This anti-Muslim screed is the literary equivalent of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' and should not be promoted by a publication that has any sense of decency," said CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. "The National Review must clarify its position on Islamophobic hate speech and offer a public apology for promoting a book that so viciously attacks the faith of one-fifth of the world's population."
Hooper said anti-Muslim rhetoric often leads to discrimination and even violence.
What a load of radioactive hogwash, Ibrahim. And it's hogwash on several levels:
1. National Review didn't originate the advertising material that CAIR quotes here. I couldn't find it on their site, although it may be there somewhere (unless they have already caved). In fact, this is ad copy that has circulated to a number of book services; I found it here. (This is also a good place where you can buy the book.)
2. The book in question, The Life and Religion of Mohammed by Fr. J. L. Menezes, is not a volume of "anti-Muslim hate literature." It was written over eighty years ago by a Roman Catholic priest who was a missionary in India. I have read it, and there is nothing inflammatory or inciteful in it; in fact, it is suffused with a pastoral love for Muslims.
3. The author, as a Christian priest, obviously did not accept Muhammad's claim to be a prophet. If it is Islamophobic hate literature for a book to explain "why Mohammed couldn't possibly be a true prophet," then the Christian Faith itself is Islamophobic and hateful. (And that, of course, is precisely the view that prevails among all too many today in Pakistan, where many Christians have been victimized under the nation's blasphemy laws after being confronted by Muslims and refusing to acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet.)
4. As this press release itself reflects, The Life and Religion of Mohammed doesn't say anything false about Muhammad. "Mohammed posed as the apostle of God...while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful butcheries, all the time invoking God's holy name to sanction his evil deeds." Aside from the judgment that all this is "evil," what in it is CAIR actually denying? That Muhammad claimed to be the apostle of God? No, I'm sure Hooper and Co. would affirm that. That he was married more than once? Universally acknowledged by Muslims. That his career was marked by "great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful butcheries"? Let's take each of those in turn.
a. "Great licentiousness":
Again, these are judgmental words, but the judgment is not unreasonable or unfounded. Just one of many possible examples comes from the Qur'an, in which Allah allows Muhammad to have more wives than are allowed to other Muslims: "O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers..." (Qur'an 33:50)
b. "Deeds of rapine":
Yet again this is not an unreasonable judgment. The Qur'an assumes that Muslims will be waging war and forcibly seizing others' property, and so far from forbidding this, only insists that the Prophet get a share: "And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger and for the kinsman (who hath need) and orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if ye believe in Allah and that which We revealed unto Our slave on the Day of Discrimination, the day when the two armies met" (Qur'an 8:41).
c. "Warfare":
Muhammad fought in many battles and enjoined warfare on his followers:
"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not" (Qur'an 2:216).
Muhammad, of course, started almost all the battles in which he fought. A sampling: "Ibn Shihab reported that Allah’s Messenger made an expedition to Tabuk and he (the Holy Prophet) had in his mind (the idea of threatening the) Christians of Arabia in Syria and those of Rome" (Sahih Muslim, book 37, no. 6670).
d. "Conquests":
Did Muhammad not conquer? "And that Our forces, they surely must conquer" (Qur'an 37:173).
"Narrated 'Amr bin Salama: We were at a place which was a thoroughfare for the people, and the caravans used to pass by us and we would ask them, "What is wrong with the people? What is wrong with the people? Who is that man?. They would say, "That man claims that Allah has sent him (as an Apostle), that he has been divinely inspired, that Allah has revealed to him such-and-such." I used to memorize that (Divine) Talk, and feel as if it was inculcated in my chest (i.e. mind) And the 'Arabs (other than Quraish) delayed their conversion to Islam till the Conquest (of Mecca). They used to say." "Leave him (i.e. Muhammad) and his people Quraish: if he overpowers them then he is a true Prophet. So, when Mecca was conquered, then every tribe rushed to embrace Islam, and my father hurried to embrace Islam before (the other members of) my tribe" (Sahih Bukhari, volume 5, book 59, number 595).
e. "Unmerciful butcheries":
Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad's earliest biographer (and a pious Muslim) recounts the massacre of the Jewish Banu Qurayzah: "The apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches....There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900." (Ibn Ishaq's Sira, 689).
CAIR may differ with Fr. Menezes's assessment of this material, but it can't very well deny its existence. Muslim apologists try to justify Muhammad's marriages, battles, and killings in various ways, but it would be the height of chutzpah to deny they took place at all. Would CAIR, in contrast, paint for us a picture of Muhammad the Rotarian?
5. "Hooper said anti-Muslim rhetoric often leads to discrimination and even violence." Fr. Menezes calls for no violence. Everything he says about Muhammad is, as I have shown, easily established from Islamic sources. What this charge does is attempt to divert attention from the real violence committed by jihadists today to a chimera of violence against Muslims in America, and thereby silence criticism of Islam and, in particular, investigations of the sources of Islamic terror in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
But what about when the jihadists themselves quote the same passages to justify their behavior? Surely they aren't "Islamophobic" too, are they? Of course they aren't -- and if non-Muslims can't look into Islamic sources to investigate the causes of jihad violence, it plays into their hands: the less Americans know about how they recruit and motivate terrorists, the less we can do about it.
6. "This anti-Muslim screed is the literary equivalent of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'" No it isn't. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a malicious work of fiction. But I have cited Islamic sources only in illustrating each of the points above. Is CAIR ready to say that all that (and much more that could be adduced) is false?
Of course not. They would say (except that they won't have to, because they won't be called to account) that it is all taken out of context. Yet no one has ever satisfactorily explained in what context this all becomes benign.
Finally, the book is not "self-published." It was first published in the 1920s; what is being advertised now is a new reprint from Roman Catholic Books.
If CAIR succeeds in intimidating NR into silence or getting them to drop this book, it will be a victory for those who don't want Americans to know the uncomfortable details about Muhammad that are in the book. Unfortunately, however, jihad terrorists around the world today know these elements of the life of Muhammad quite well, and are imitating them. Ignorance of them on the part of Americans will only make us more vulnerable.
All right, everyone. Buy your copy while it's hot off the press.
Whenever I have used Koranic quotes in articles or posts in the past, muslims have always argued that they are fabricated.
It's hard to counter their arguments, because most of the English translations of the Koran are sugar coated and distort what it actually says.
This is an important post. Thanks Mr. Spencer for providing this.
National Review needs support. Dell caved to these barbs and National Review needs to know that PC is for the goofy, weak, and cowardly.
Thanks Mr Spencer for this too, its begining to show me that CAIR is getting rattled, education and knowledge is getting out there to the masses and there is nothing these people can do to stop it. Keep up teh work all.
Well, should we demand an apology for all the hatred found in the qur'an towards non-muslims? It is a pretty hateful read after all. I hope that National Review stands firm.
http://www.memri.org/video/
Maybe we should remind them of these videos.
Anyone know how to contact the National Review?
Email in support of their magazine and perhaps a letter to the editor is in order!
Just give the link and I'll crap all over CAIR!
Is CAIR opposed to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Do they condemn it's widespread use in all Muslim countries? Do they inform their good friends at Hamas that the Protocols are a fraud? Do they regularly send out statements condemning the use of the famously fake Protocols in Muslim incitement to murder Jews?
CAIR promotes the Protocols whenever it is convenient for them to do so. They support the murder of Jews. The support the murder of Americans. CAIR is a racist, antisemitic hate group who's membership consists of Islamofascists.
My support goes to the National Review.
Seems amazing that to repeat in english what the quoran says in arabic, and which every male muslim tries to commit to memory, is considered, by muslims, to be stirring up anti-islamic sentiment.
islam cannot survive scrutiny in this age of information, so the islamic response is censorship
1. National Review is not "neocon".
2. Why isn't there a link to where we can buy this book, preferably in a way that gives NR credit?
3. CAIR should learn that trying to threaten someone into silence just makes their message more appealing.
You have to see this video, it is a 3 year old baby being prodded into speaking about Jews.http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/memri/memri_10-30-02_01.rm
Got the link! Now for a scathing letter to the editor!
http://www.nationalreview.com/contact/contact.asp
So, I would suppose uttering a claim like, "Mohammed posed as the apostle of God...while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful butcheries, all the time invoking God's holy name to sanction his evil deeds." involves an attack against Islam, according to CAIR.
Well, then isn't defensive Jihad obliged against such an attack. How could it not be? Isn't this press release simply one aspect of the larger 'struggle' against those who defame or defy the prophet?
And how far will CAIR be willing to go in the Jihad against this 'hate speech', this 'attack' against the prophet? What if they do not get an apology from the National Review (who did not even utter this anyway)? What if such speech is not only protected by the Constitution, but sustainable without civil liability? What is CAIR willing to do? The Qu'ran enjoins the religious obligation to carry on the 'fight' against those that defy God and slander the prophet. Will CAIR find inspiration in the advice of the prophet at the battle of Badr?
"God revealed His will to the angels, saying: "I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!"
That was because they defied God and His apostle. He that defies God and His apostle shall be sternly punished by God. We said to them: "Taste this. The scourge of the Fire that awaits the unbelievers." [8:12-15; Dawood trans.]
This kind of press release shows that without any question the 'battle' has been joined by CAIR against those who are even associated with critique of Islam or any kind of 'attack' against the prophet. The war is on, and our govenment must understand what the Qu'ran says about such conflicts and the endless, aggressive, deceptive, and potentially violent nature of the 'fight' against those who defy and defame 'the apostle of God'.
CAIR is an institution wholly committed to do battle for goals that are utterly inconsistent with our Constitutional principles. This must be acknowledged at the highest levels of government.
and islamic censorship, lest we forget,
includes murdering the truth teller.
Ask Salmon Rushdie, ask friends of the murdered film maker Van Gogh, ask the two Dutch elected members of parliament who are under 24 guard and cannot live in their own homes because of threats from islamics.
islamic censorship includes murder; let us not forget that the fatwas, the orders to murder, Salmon Rushdie, came from the most senior members of the islamic heirarchy in Iran, not from fringe radicals.
As always, Robert Spencer contains himself, and is the epitome of the consumate class act. If you notice, the adjective he used to describe Ibrahim Hooper's comments was "radioactive hogwash"....
I'd have a world of respect for Spencer. However, "dirty diaper" would've been my slection.
The heat is being turned up on them, and you can smell it. Mr. Hooper and his harem should realize that they will continue to be confronted, and the education of those who don't know about them will not stop.
We're not "Islamophobes" (an old, worn out, beat up, unoriginal, boring fake word not located in the dictionary).
As my drinkin' pal Kevin Montavan, vocalist for local metal band Voidgazer says: "They wish we were afraid of them, but really, we just want their asses shut down and moved out. We practice Islamo-knowbia, and therefore are Islamoknowbes. We know Islam, and they don't like it. I've read the Koran from cover to cover so I for one, don't give a rat's ass what they like. Now, off to my Budweiser."
"Clarify their position on anti-Muslim hate?"
Ok. They're against it. Case closed.
Geoff
One more thing about the ridiculous, vicious analogy with the Protocols.
The Protocols should be considered extremely dangerous because we already know how effective they were in glavinizing a murderous hatred against Jews on a massive scale. Lies are bad things in and of themselves, but the Protocols are lies dripping with the blood of millions. Hence, any appearance of the Protocols (that have been endorsed on Egyptian TV and elsewhere in the Arab and Islamic world) deserves outrage.
And what about critique of Islam and the life of the prophet? Sudan, Armenia, India...Muslims generally have not confronted the contributions of Islam to genocidal warfare and unspeakable violence; Muslim advocates have instead engaged in the systematic denial and whitewashing of any attempt to come to terms with concrete relationships between the Qu'ran, hadiths and sira and Islam's murderous past and present. Hence, open criticism of Islam is a good thing; we are morally obliged to encourage it. This criticism does not aim for debasement and violence but awareness and defense against violence inspired by ideology grounded in Islamic scripture and traditions.
By initiating an ideological, Qu'ran inspired 'fight' against the National Review over this book, by raising the vicious analogy with the Protocols, CAIR shows how little it cares about the millions slaughtered by the Nazis and the millions murdered by Islamic armies and groups throughout history: these dead do not matter. Forget them. The only thing that matters to CAIR: the victory of Islam.
The hysterical attempt by CAIR to silence those who simply repeat the facts of Muhammad's life, as set down in the Sira, is of a piece with the behavior of Muslim ambassadors last year at a session of the U.N. Commisssion on Human Rights in Geneva last year. An N.G.O. brought in evidence that in Egypt, eleventh-grade textbooks included instructions on Infidel-hatred, and on how to behead the enemy, and that, in response, the Pakistani Ambassador, speaking on behalf of the entire membership of the Organization of Islamic Countries, accused those who presented this evidence as guilty of "defamation." Yet what he called "defamation" was the fact that the N.G.O. representative, Mr. David LIttman, simply read from Egyptian high school textbooks, without comment. Similarly, in the Australian case brought against two Christian ministers, who were former Pakistanis and converts from Islam who knew a good deal about Islam, the charge against them amounted to this: that they actually had the temerity to quote from the Qur'an.
That is what CAIR objects to here. It would, if it could, ban al biographies of Muhammad for Infidels that do not hide the reality. When in her sinister schoolgirl gush Karen Armstrong praises Muhammad as a "peacemaker" and offers no discussion of the 78 battles he took part in, or his treatment of the Banu Qurayza, his attacks on the Khaybar oasis, his political assassination of Asma bint Marwan, of an aged Jewish man (supposedly over 100), of the poet who mocked him, of his sexual intercourse with 9-year-old Aisha). When a travel-guide writer named Barnaby Rogerson suddenly produces a hagiographic work on Muhammad, that describes him as a "hero for all mankind" one is entitled to wonder what it is, exactly, that lies behind that sudden "scholarship" of one Barnabay Rogerson, but one can be sure his effort was well-rewarded and is just the sort of book of which CAIR would approve.
Would CAIR suppress the biographies of Muhamamd by Sir William Muir, whose knowledge of Arabic and other Eastern languages was profound? Or the biography of the scholar Professor Arthur Jeffery? Or that of Tor Andrae? Or even the islamisant (because tiers-mondiste and marxist) Maxime Rodinson, whose book was favorably blurbed by Edward Said (who could not possibly have read it, but then he so seldom read anything he gave a favorable blurb to -- he was in the business of mutual blurbing)? Father Menezes is only one small part of the problem.
And what about Ibn Ishaq--or what has was made of Ibn Ishaq -- himself? Does CAIR deny the story of the Khaybar Oasis, Asma bint Marwan, the Banu Qurayza, little Aisha, the pretext on which the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya was breached, and so on.
Who are you going to believe -- CAIR, or your lying eyes?
My letter to the editor of the National Review sent a few minutes ago:
CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations is at it again. This time they do their best to intimidate the National Review for a internet advertisement on a book written by a Roman Catholic priest over eighty years ago. The book, The Life and Religion of Mohammed, is a revealing glimpse into Islam, and CAIR doesn't want it read. CAIR claims the book is "virulently Islamophobic " and should be banned.
What hogwash! The book is critical of Islam and objective, but hardly inflammatory. We should let CAIR decide what we can read, what the National Review can advertise?
CAIR along with a few other Islamic associations stand for the very antitheses of everything American. They whine and complain, crying Islamaphobia when the truth about Islam is published or spoken in public. The truth is, that the founders of CAIR are virulently nasty people who hide their true colors with finesse and guile. To support my claim here are a few quotes from the staff of CAIR:
Omar Ahmad (co-founder of CAIR):
"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
Nihad Awad (Executive Director of CAIR):
I am in support of the Hamas movement."
Ibrahim Hooper (CAIR Spokesperson):
"CAIR does not support these groups (Hamas) publicly."
And better yet…
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."
Ibrahim Hooper has publicly defended bin Laden as being no worse than Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
Dr. Ghazi Khankan (CAIR Spokesperson):
"I bring to you salaams and greetings from the Mujahadeen at CAIR."
All CAIR does is attack our culture, our way of life, and our knowledge of Islam. They don't want the American public to know the truth, so they do their best to intimidate the American press into silence. In tiny bites, they want to transform America into an Islamic state.
Bill Rowan
No doubt my letter will never see the light of day now that they've caved to CAIR.
I am utterly and totally disgusted with National Review. Spineless, freaking, traitors to western culture and civilization.
I'm almost finished with Bat Ye'ors Islam and Dhimmitude, and sadly it appears to be prophetic, although that was not her intention.
National Review = gutless cowards, who will cave next? (Besides the Saudis bosom buddy Bush).
If our "leaders" don't step up to the plate, there won't be any western civilization to defend, nothing but a moslemah, all submissive to Islamic clerics.
In America we are free to read and believe what we want -- CAIR wants to end that privilege. As BillR has stated, little by little they are chipping away at us. They will be surprised how eventually Americans will get tired of this nonsense and do a better of job of resistance than did the Europeans.
As for suing NR -- on what basis do they make their suit? Is the information false? Is the information biased? No, it comes straight from the Koran as as RS has explained, is the truth and nothing but the truth!
I just ordered a copy from:
http://www.booksforcatholics.com/
...and a bunch of other old classics.
The favorite tool of the Left- the Lawsuit- wins again. Just think how bad it would have gotten if the Trial Lawyer Twins had gotten into the White House. CAIR and the Saudis would be silencing everyone they could, with ease.
Ethelred posted this article on the myth of peaceful muslims by Ali Sina the other day, and I finally got around to reading it:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina50318.htm
The article deserves more publicity and it relates well to CAIR. The oddball claims, arguments, and contradictory positions of CAIR and other Islamic organizations are hard to understand; don't folks experience the strangeness of even having to raise a vioce against this nonsense? In logic a contradiction implies anything, and that is what people who critique Islam must be ready for, anything.
And the answer from Ali Sina: irrationality is the norm in Islam. Expect contradictions, moral perversions, do not be surprised by them. These are merely the natural legacies of Muhammad's examples and teachings. Ali Sina explains how contradictions inherent in Islamic thinking relate to the obligation of Jihad and the schizophrenic claims of 'peace' against the background of private expressions of delight at violence and mass murder.
A good read by a very thoughtful ex-Muslim that deserves to be passed around.
fides:
Here's a link to a comic book showing the
life of Muhammed in a manner that would drive
Hooper to blow his top off.
http://www.davidsonpress.com/islam/index.htm
Free speech is for everyone,except for Islam,peace is attained by slaughtering all the people that don't agree with it.
*************************************************
BTW,CAIR Canada's mission statement is posted
below and they presuppose that all non-Muslims in Canada are ignorant bigots that need to be enlightened on the Quran and Islam.
CAIR USA had the nerve to demand Canadian media
run the FOX "24" pre-show message about how kind and foregiving Muslims are because of their faiths tenets.
http://caircan.ca/index.php
Click on the menu item "About us" to see the
statement below.
*************************************************
What is CAIR-CAN’s mission?
Through activism in the areas of media relations, anti-discrimination and political advocacy, CAIR-CAN aims to educate Canadians and empower Canadian Muslims. We believe misrepresentations of Islam are most often the result of a lack of knowledge on the part of non-Muslims and reluctance on the part of Muslims to articulate their cause.
*************************************************
Sorry Hooper,I have my own faith and forcing me to be indoctrined with Islam shows that it's MUSLIMS that have the problem and paranoia along with denial can be treated with medication.
NO CAIR - DON'T CARE
CAIR knows how to use our own system against us.
They are very clever, and think that America is weak. One has to remember that 'truth' is a Western idea. Please people, who the hell wants to go back and live in the 7th century? We must be strong and as smart as they are.
National Review relies not only on advertising, but on donations. Like many magazines and universities, it also runs a "cruise" where one can meet that particular sponosoring group's Great and Good. But as Frost wrote:
Too many fall from great and good
For you to doubt the likelihood.
By yielding to a demand, and threatened litigation, by CAIR, an organization several of whose officers have been connected to support for terrorism, National Review should be made to feel the wrath of those who have supported it in the past. The outraged need not cancel their subscriptions, but should no longer go on those cruises or donate to the magazine. And they should make clear their reason for diminished enthusiasm. And if those who come to Jihadwatch have met others who were similar enthusiasts, perhaps they could contact those others, and ask them to go and do likewise. Without countervailing pressure, every damn magazine and newspaper and radio and television program in America will succumb to CAIR. And this must not happen.
One thing National Review could do is now offer preferential rates for certain publishers or books about Islam that do not take the CAIR line. Or what about a special commissioned article on "defectors from Islam" that will introduce readers to www.faithfreedom.org of Ali Sina, and www.secularislam.org of Ibn Warraq, and a dozen others -- those websites need to get into circulation.
NR can do the handsome thing, at this point, and offer a page of advertising at special rates for Ibn Warraq's or Bat Ye'or's or Robert Spencer's books. It can do all sorts of things.
But someone needs to bring it to their attention-- someone who has keenly supported the magazine in the past. Volunteers?
Wonder where a brave lawyer can be found that could launch a class action suit against CAIR and CAIRCAN for all the lies and hate mongering that comes from them. Good upstanding people should and I do believe find their rubbish offensive to our way of life, beliefs and intelligence.
Then again it would be a large battle because you can bet your bottom dollar that CAIR won't cave in like publishers and the politicians do. Shameful shamful.
JTF
As Ali Sina suggests, Muslims are so mesmerized by their own dissimulation, they may not even be aware they are doing it. But here's a refreshing bit of straight-talkin' from the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman:
[We] welcome being terrorists. And we do not deny this charge to ourselves. The Qur’an makes it among the means to perform jihad for the sake of Allah, which is to terrorize the enemies of God and our enemies too. Then we must be terrorists, and we must terrorize the enemies of Islam, and frighten them, and disturb them, and shake the earth under their feet.
If only CAIR were as direct.
Mr. SPencer wrote:
If it is Islamophobic hate literature for a book to explain "why Mohammed couldn't possibly be a true prophet," then the Christian Faith itself is Islamophobic and hateful.
Mr. Spencer, I think that is exactly what CAIR is trying to do and why they're joining with the loopy Left to silence public Christian witness in the USA and elsewhere.
Why aren't we calling for apologies from CAIR and for all the hateful antisemitism that is spewed all over the world towards infidels,Christians and Jews? Why should Christians apologize for the Crusades?
>>>Did CAIR apologize for 9-11 ?
>>>Did CAIR apologize for all the antisemitic hate literature found in nearly 80 PCT. of Waahabist influenced mosques?
>>>Did CAIR apologize for the nearly 40 Islamic terrorist groups spread out over the world that murders Jews and Christians in the name of Allah?
And how about this list of muslim terrorist attacks that killed Americans since 1968?
http://avpv.tripod.com/AmericanVictims.html
The list is overwhelming and for the most part represents innocent civilians that where all murdered in the name of Allah
.Only A dam fool would apologize to Islam .
See this as well
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15169_Saudi_Sheikh_Sues_American_Writer#comments
The National Review is now officially CAIR's bitch.
So CAIR have succeeded (done a little conquest) against the National Review. Now the little Dark Age imitating bandits must be thinking which other online sources of knowledge to raid/shut down next. If Cair can create a snowballing effect among such magazines they would have created a kind of new dark ages.
They must have heard of the burning of the Alexandrian Library by the Muslim warmongers and want to do a 21st imitation of it.
If only National Review would not let "any" of their freedom of thought get burned down to the ground I would subscribe and give them a donation. If the truth dies we are finished.
Next time such a magazine gets targeted I hope we can act in some way before they cave in.
Robert, Hugh, ANYONE:
I got some flak from the right in the commentary of LGF for a phrase in my recent article:
"Islamist Organizations Use Public Television to Market Sharia Law to American Youth." Here is the phase that some people didn't like:
"They can either reject Sharia law altogether (much like modern day Judaism no longer believes in the application of Mosaic law)..."
Some thought I was making a "moral equivalency" argument between the rules of Judaism and Islam. You all know I would never do anything so absurd. Now based on my understanding, Mosiac law is not "the Ten Commandments," it refers to the harsh punishments prescribed in Deuteronomy (Old Testament). Based on my understanding, not even the Ultra-Orthodox Jews want to stone women to death for adultry. Is my use of the term "Mosiac law" innappropriate? Or is this a better wording:
"They can either reject Sharia law altogether (much like Judaism no longer prescribes the harsh punishments described in Deuteronomy)..."
I am open to suggestions.
Mr. Martel,
The irrationality of cultish directives proposed by Ali Sina explains a lot. The cognitive and emotional distance between Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and CAIR officials operating under constraints of this society are very narrow; CAIR can denounce Rahman, call him an Infidel, or maybe even a 'terrorist', and yet be pleased with his efforts and help along in their own ways to further the Jihad against the non-believers; and the leadership of CAIR and other followers either do not care about or do not acknowledge all the contradictions they weave. It does not matter because of the psychological atmospherics (to use one of Hugh's favorites) of the Islamic cult.
One cannot have a rational dialogue with irrational people. Disputes must be settled by threat of force and other constraints, like lawsuits. Interesting, isn't it, that CAIR and other Islamic organizations feel so at home in this kind of world; dialogue with those critical of Islam is obliterated right from the start with ad hominem attacks (claims of ignorance, racism, Islamophobia), because dialogue cannot be engaged by an irrational mind. Threaten, attack, pull back, negotiate, attack again, but get what you want through the use of force. That is the methodology. Reason is irrelevant.
National Review
CONTACT:
Mr. Richard Lowry
Editor
National Review
215 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10016
TEL: 212-679-7330
FAX: 212-849-2835
E-MAIL: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com, nronline@nationalreview.com, JonahNRO@aol.com, klopez@nationalreview.com, comments.kurtz@nationalreview.com, letters@nationalreview.com
(taken from CAIR)
Here's NR's review of the book:
Working from the earliest Islamic sources, Fr. Menezes provides a complete account of Mohammed's life, from his days as a simple merchant to his triumphs as a leader of armies and revered prophet. Menezes delved so deeply into his subject that he was even able to describe Mohammed's physical appearance. He explains why Mohammed couldn't possibly be a true prophet, and reveals the true sources of his "revelations."
Fr. Menezes could be writing about today's Muslim terrorists when he explains that "Mohammed posed as the apostle of God, the seal of the prophets; as the destroyer of idolatry; as preacher of one true God, and the reformer of morals: while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful butcheries, all the time invoking God's holy name to sanction his evil deeds, ordering prayers and alms deeds and at the same time propagating Islam everywhere by fire and sword."
Turning to the Koran, Fr. Menezes delineates the distinctive teachings of Islam, explaining the elements of the Muslim holy book that make it so difficult for Muslims to convert to Christianity -- and showing how the Koran, when read honestly and without Islamic preconceptions, nonetheless depends upon and leads to Christianity.
Fr. Menezes concludes with an "appeal to candor and common sense," inviting Muslims to think critically about their religion, and to embrace Christ instead. With Islam on the march everywhere and Muslims streaming into the U.S. in record numbers, the candor, common sense, and solid Christian faith of this book are needed more than ever.
Your guide into the dark mind of Mohammed:
The bizarre circumstances of Mohammed's "revelations": "it was a painful sight to behold the nervousness of his features, the distortion of his countenance and the anxiety of mind portrayed on his face"
How worldly ambition gradually blinded Mohammed's mind and overwhelmed his early searches for the true God
How Mohammed borrowed many of his ideas of Paradise from contemporary Jews and Christians -- and mixed them with base and lewd imaginings
How Mohammed again and again justified his rapine and licentiousness with new "divine revelations"
Why Mohammed grew so bitter against both Jews and Christians, after initially courting their favor
Mohammed's fateful order that all churches and synagogues in his domains be demolished
How Mohammed ordered the assassinations of several of his chief opponents
How even Mohammed's replies to his critics in the Koran are insufficient to refute the charge that he was a false prophet who fabricated revelations
Why Mohammed adopted -- and later discarded -- many Jewish customs and ritual observances
Islamic tolerance: Mohammed let Jews and Christians live in his domains -- if they paid tribute and accepted second-class status
What the Koran really teaches about Christianity and Christ
What Mohammed learned from heretical Christian sects -- and incorporated into the Koran
The early history of Islam: just as bloody as the life of its founder
How the Koran doesn't limit Muslims to four wives, as is widely believed, but actually sets no real limit
Why the new religion Mohammed taught became so commonly identified with war and politics
The crisis caused in Islam by the death of Mohammed's only son -- which continues to this day
Sunnis, Shiites, Sufis, Motazalites and more: the differences between the various Muslim seers
By the way-you can still buy the book at NR. It's still up on the site for sale......www.FCAIR.slug
Mohammed: the ugly truth about the founder of the world's most violent religion
By a priest who lived and ministered among Muslims
The Life and Religion of Mohammed
by Menezes, J.L.
Fr. J.L. Menezes knew Islam up close: as a priest in India, he devoted his priestly life to introducing that nation's tens of millions of Muslims to Christianity. With this life of Mohammed, he left us the record of his appeals: a frank, honest, and exhaustively researched exploration of the life of the "prophet" of Islam, the development and contents of the Koran, and an introduction to various Muslim sects.
Correction: You can find the book here:
http://www.nrbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6614#continue
CAIR is well financed, has professional PR and legal personnel to get its message across and threaten those who dare to tell the trut about Islam.
What have we got? Jihad Watch, FaithFreedomForm, other websites. No avenue to blanket the Main-Stream Media with our message. And the leader of this nation that is being marked for eventual Islamicization? The less said about his stance versus the onlaught, the better.
The cunning of the CAIR in promoting their agenda cannot be topped. Now they have a conference that deals with "Islamophobia" and Anti-Americansim. The main concept of this pairing is that "Islamophobia" promotes Anti-Americanism--especially in "the Muslim world."
If there were no effort to brake the Islamic onslaught on our values, would "the Muslim world" be be less determined to bring Islam to America? I doubt it.
You'll notice that Muslims such as Cooper have absolutely no problem with anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-western world hate literature. Fill in your noun, the Muslim world has probably got a hateful, anti-something or other publication on it.
As we all know by now, hate or anti-ism is really not the problem Muslims have with the western world anyway. What this is really about is finding a way to control people in the western democracies by dint of forcing dhimmism upon us. Methinks this article could have appeared in 'Dhimmiwatch'. Islam is deeply opposed to human beings expressing their individuality and it is constantly seeking means ideological means of tethering humankind. Lo and behold! "CAIR" and its cast of terrorist buffoons like Cooper appear on the scene in the USA preaching to US about hate.
Of course DESPISING individuals like Cooper isn't entirely unwarranted, is it?
p.s.-- What this goes to show is NEVER LISTEN TO ANYTHING A MUSLIMS SAYS!!
Hugh,
The uninformed public will get CAIR's message, not directly but via the cowed media, not what you and the rest of us here lay before the American public's eyes. We apparently cannot get the message out because the main-stream media as well as the US administration is partial to CAIR and not to those screaming at the margins, in the unnoticed wilderness.
CAIR appears to have the our law-enforcement and intelligence agencies by the cojones, what with "sensitivity training" and constant conferences and meetings to better "understand" poor, poor defamed Islam.
There are those in Congress that are on our side, but as long as the US administration (and the prior one was no better, nor was the one proposed by the Democratic party last November) is tainted by either ignorance, multiculturalism, or Saudi influence and money, we are driving against a strong headwind. Saudi money has bought media, internet services such as AOL and the two others, and government department employees. There are ways to stop the Saudis from acquiring mo' and mo' money. to metion them is not only not politically incorrect but taboo everywhere, so I shall desist to do so.
Rublev-
The phrase "Mosaic Law" has become popularly whittled down to mean just the 'Ten Commandments', since few of the other, more bizarre Torah regulations are obeyed anymore, outside of ultra-orthodox communities. And so are generally unknown. But, your words are accurate enough for anyone who knows the first five books of the Old Testament and many of their inhumane dogmas.
Maybe you need add a few parenthetical blurbs to be more specific for the (perhaps) intentionally naive:
"(...the arcane dietary injunctions and cruel and unusual punishments of) Mosaic Law (leavened throughout the Pentatuch, excluding the more benign Ten Commandments...)"
"The phrase "Mosaic Law" has become popularly whittled down to mean just the 'Ten Commandments', since few of the other, more bizarre Torah regulations are obeyed anymore, outside of ultra-orthodox communities. And so are generally unknown."
As an Observant Jewish woman, I always find the term "Ultra-Orthodox" to be very humorous. There is no such thing as an "Ultra-Orthodox" Jew. There is Orthodox and non-Orthodox. As far as I can tell, this appellation started by the liberal newspapers to denigrate and make the Orthodox Jewish perspective seem extreme and unreasonable. Has anyone ever asked themselves when the last time they saw the word "Orthodox" stand alone in a newspaper/article? Why is it that there is no distinction made between those who are "Orthodox" and those who are "Ultra-Orthodox"? To put it simply, in the thoughts of the liberal media, there is no distinction = ergo to be Orthodox is an extreme position.
Just a thought. (and now getting off my soapbox) ;-)
Yeah, yeah - it's all islamophobia. Now how to cure it, how to cure it...hmmmmmm....
[FADE FROM BLACK]
[A COUPLE LYING IN BED. THE WIFE IS CLEARLY UNABLE TO SLEEP, TOSSING AND TURNING. HUSBAND TURNS TO HER.]
HUSBAND: What's wrong, honey?
WIFE: Oh, it's this darn islamophobia! It's got me up all night and I just can't sleep.
HUSBAND: [chuckles] Well, I told you not to read those jihadic verses from the Quran and all that al-Bukhari before bedtime!
WIFE: [pouting] Now I'm too nauseated and horrified at the true underlying nature of islam to get any sleep! Oh, it's no use! The things Ibraham Hooper and his gang have said in the past keep sticking in my head.
HUSBAND: [scratches chin] 'Sticking in your head', eh? Wait a minute, hon - I think I've got just the thing.
[BATHROOM, AT MIRROR SINK. WIFE IS HOLDING BOX.]
WIFE: What's this?
HUSBAND: Why, it's New 'CAIR-All', the new product from CAIR. They guarantee that it cures even the most lingering islamophobia and other stomach upset - and it's got 100% of your daily recommendation of lead!
WIFE: Wow! How do I take it? [Fills a glass and puts two tablets in her hand]
HUSBAND: [chuckles heartily] No, no, hun - it doesn't go in from THAT end. [chuckles again]
[ELAPSED CLOCK SHOWS FIVE MINUTES' PASSED TIME]
HUSBAND: How do you feel now, honey?
WIFE: [drooling slightly] No more islamophobia. Support the umma. Islam is not meant to be second to any religion in the land.
HUSBAND: And Ibrahim Hooper?
WIFE: [still drooling] Ibrahim Hooper is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my whole life.
HUSBAND: [big grin] That's right, honey - new and improved CAIR will take away all your legitimate concerns over violent islamofascist politics and put them...well...somewhere, anyway. We don't really know where! And who cares?
WIFE: [carrying on as if to self] And yet, somewhere in the back of my mind, something tells me it's not true.
HUSBAND: Ok, honey, that's great. So buy new all-improved 'CAIR-All' and let your concerns about islam wash away like the blood in an Afghani soccer stadium.
WIFE: [background] It isn't as if Hooper's hard to like. He's IMPOSSIBLE to like. In fact, he's probably one of the most repulsive human beings I've ever known in my whole life.
[HUSBAND RUSHES TO COVER WIFE'S MOUTH AS SCREEN FADES QUICKLY TO 1-800 NUMBER]
[DISEMBODIED ANNOUNCER: So buy New and improved 'CAIR-All'. Available at drugstores, local public schools, universities and everywhere else reasoned debate has been suppressed by incipient legal action. Buy before stocks run out and the government is forced to lock you up for your own benefit!]
[SECOND DISEMBODIED ANNOUNCER: Inshallah, side-effects may include misplaced anger, self-importance, antisemitism, general intolerance and nausea. Do not operate heavy machinery or explosives after taking New 'CAIR-All'. Women should wear protective cloth head-shields and have half the human value of men.]
Geoff
PS: Order now and receive a free copy of the "Manchurian Candidate" - on BETA. Say, while you're waiting, why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
PPS: Pyth, Umma, Hugh, ala, Kepha; dead on as usual. Anti-Christian sentiments and attacks on Jewish and Christian religion in general are ok for Hooper and his goons. But reasoned interpretations of his own religion? Whoa, hold on there, that's bigotry.
Yeah yeah, sure sure Hooper.
Dickhead.
First Knight: interesting point there - you're right though, CAIR would fight it out. And why not? The Saudi's coffers are almost bottomless.
Geoff
I just bought two copies of the book from NR Book Service. will send an e-mail to the NR folks to tell them not to cave to CAIR, alert them to CAIR's proclivity for suing people/companies, and to remind NR of the concept of Freedom of Speech which they and we hold very dearly indeed.
Truth has always been hate speech in the PCworld
1. Is Muhammed a true prophet?
If answer = no, scream "Islamophobic! Islamophobic!"
2. Is Baha'u'llah a true prophet?
If answer = no, scream "Bahaiophobic! Bahaiophobic!"
3. Is Joseph Smith a true prophet?
If answer = no, scream "Mormonophobic! Mormonophobic!"
4. Is Buddha a true prophet?
If answer = no, scream "Buddhaphobic! Buddhaphobic!"
5. Is Jesus Christ God?
If answer = no, scream "Christianophobic! Christianophobic!"
And on and on and on....same song, second verse.
Paula-
The strict Hassidim, etc., would be "ultra-orthodox" to my mind. (Even Moses was not known for dressing all in black or wearing a proto-porkpie hat.) The regularly observant Jewish congregation, I consider the "orthodox" (adhering to ritualistic, dietary and other general Mosaic laws fairly strictly), and the "Reformed" would be the more modern, "non-orthodox" sect.
Israel suffered an "ultra-orthodox" assassination a few years ago of its own leader. Or would you call that guy an "orthodox" killer? Or a "Reformed" murderer?
Personally, I'm a freethinker, which is why I oppose Islam. Or any orthodoxy. They always come for me, cut off my head, burn my writings, kill my family, steal my livestock, and wantonly use my possessions, -all for the glory of something as unprovable as the extent of infinity or as unfathomable as the length of eternity.
Give me an open mind over a closed book any day.
Any eon.
Or any aeschaton.
Shalom.
Dear National Review Online Editor,
In the matter of CAIR seeking to silence NRO advertisements for the book, "The Life and Religion of Mohammed" by J.L. Menezes.
Once again, CAIR seeks to silence all open literary discussion of Islam's teachings. This should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with CAIR, it's known links to Islamist terror groups such as HAMAS, its record of employing individuals who were later convicted for financing terrorist groups, and it's unrepentent attacks on free speech and expression in America. And once again, their heavy-handed approach will backfire, shining the bright light of controversy upon their senseless efforts to quash the truth about Islam's violent and intolerant foundations and history.
Please do not cave in to their bullying tactics. America is locked in an ideological battle with Islamist terrorism's supporters and their mouthpieces, such as CAIR. CAIR's goal, best stated by its past leader Omar Ahmed in 1998 is clear:
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
You should be well aware that islam instructs its followers to lie to unbelievers in order to protect Islam. We see this dissimulation constantly in the disingenuous statements of CAIR and other Islamist groups. CAIR loves to whine about Islamophobia against poor, oppressed Muslims, while wielding a Saudi Wahhabi-financed legal brickbat against any opponent it wants to attack. It also throws significant amounts of money around buying PR advertising in support of Islamists and spreading Islamist propaganda.
Recently, in an orwellian scene reminiscent of pre-WWII US Nazi Party activities, CAIR has even overseen "Islam sensitivity training" courses for US law enforcement and intelligence personnel. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse... Sadly, our Federal Government is in full Political Correctness mode, and scared to death to confront this totalitarian threat masquerading as a religion.
The only thing these bullies understand is unyielding opposition. It is incumbent on all free-thinking people to oppose their efforts to hide the truth about Islam's violent teachings and expose CAIR for the hypocritical fraud that it most certainly is.
Is freedom of conscience a nullity in Europe? Apparently, belief in the "clash of civilizations theory" is a thought-crime:
http://www.coe.int/t/E/human_rights/ecri/1-ECRI/4-Relations_with_civil_society/1-Programme_of_action/14-Public_Presentation_Paris_2005/Study_Camus.asp#TopOfPage
"...it is quite clear that in the eyes of both extremists and a small proportion of democratic parties, the issue of Turkey’s entry into the EU and that of the future of Islam in Europe have become arguments as important as immigration and the right of asylum. There, the danger lies in reducing Islam to a single dimension and wrongly assimilating it to its most radical and violent form. The “clash of civilisations” theory is undoubtedly gaining ground, as is anti-muslim prejudice, whether one calls it “Islamophobia” or rejects that term on the grounds that it is misused by fundamentalists."
Rublev,
This subject fascinates me. I've studied history for a long time. Other than Monty Python's Life of Brian, I don't recall any stonings due to Jewish law.
"The next person who says Jehovah..."
*SMACK*
Seriously though, it appears that the strict laws one finds in Duteronomy or Leviticus were not enforced very harshly at any time in Jewish history. If I'm wrong, please tell me. I do not claim to be knowledgable, much less and expert, in this field.
ON TOPIC:
Why don't we just give CAIR a copy of the U.S. Constitution and a red pen? This is getting ridiculous. CAIR is the litigation, dawa, taqiyya, and propaganda wing of the global jihad. With some poorly-constructed transparent lies, they seem to control the media in this nation. What gives?
Big Sleep,
"...your words are accurate enough for anyone who knows the first five books of the Old Testament and many of their inhumane dogmas."
Thanks! Those are the last people I would ever want to offend.
Beagle,
There is the very famous story in the Gospels of Jesus intervening to save the life of a woman who was going to be stoned for adultery (contrary to popular belief, she was not Mary Magdaleine). The people who were going to stone her citing the "law of Moses" before Jesus humiliated them into not doing it by giving account to their sins (Sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the actual quote!).
The National Review knows all about CAIR's propensity to sue, they were sued by CAIR last fall.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/appeal200409130736.asp
A judge threw out the lawsuit, but NR had over 60K in legal defense costs.
I Though CAIR stood for the Council on American ISLAMIST Relations.
What a bunch of slime balls CAIR is. Taking out a frivilous law-suit, losing and then weaseling out of paying the NR costs. I hate to see NR cave to these fascist book burners. Poor CAIR though, they really are beginning to panic as Islam (the Religion of Peace, MY ARSE !!) comes under scrutiny. They might be able to plug the odd hole in the dyke but they cannot stem the flow of information.
Paula (and Big Sleep):
As a secular Jew, I think "ultra-orthodox" may have been coined as a reference to the small number of Jews who wear the wide-brimmed hats trimmed with fur vs. the more modern "proto pork-pies" Big Sleep references.
Toronto film maker Simcha Jacobovitch (may not have the spelling right) who among other things, made a film based on a book by Neil Gabler about the Jewish influence on Hollywood's depiction of the Wild West (being based more on the experience of Jews back in the Pale of Settlements, rather than the expansion of European settlement in North America). I believe it was in this documentary, that Jacobovitch pointed out that the manner in which orthodox Ashkenazim dress was actually inspired by the way 18th - 19th century landed Polish gentry dressed than on any guidance to be found in the Talmud, etc.
It's no wonder that the lights are on so often and so late at the CAIR headquarters. They have much work to do like...how many persons and groups can we sue this week. Mark Steyn is a columnist for NR who is Canadian, lives in the US, and has spent lots of time in Europe. I have heard him speak before on the Islamic movement. He seems under no illusions about it and its effect on Europe and the West in general. Perhaps as a columnist, he might comment on the CAIR/NR lawsuit. When will CAIR and our media learn that free speech,including books and films, has to apply to Islam too? It would help millions of Muslims who are afraid and/or searching for other answers in their lives. They need to know that their freedoms will be protected as they dare to think outside the box of Islam.
I'd like for someone (law student? legal intern? reporter?) to do some research on the many lawsuits that CAIR has filed, including all their offices in US and Canada. A comprehensive look at who was sued, on what basis, what the outcome was, what the costs were to defend against the lawsuit. Off the top of my head, I think CAIR has sued Daniel Pipes, Andrew Whitehead, TNR, and Steven Schwartz, although I believe that all of these were either settled out of court or were dismissed. No doubt there have been a great many more lawsuits.
We need the complete picture of CAIR's use of this tactic to frighten their critics. I imagine the number of lawsuits they initiate is vastly higher than any other "civil rights organization" (not that they are any such thing).
I did a quick google CAIR Lawsuits. I would suggest that others do it as well, here is a sampling
Terrorism Related Lawsuits a double edged sword
I'm beginning to think that Gary uses JW as a forum to rant against his personal bete noire, the "left".
Ahem Gary, The Saudis are family friends with, protected by, and given special privileges by that paragon of the right... your President George W. Bush.
In fact he has ensured that there are Muslim "clerics" represented in every branch of the government, including the "conservative" controlled FBI and in Chaplaincies and Faith Based Offices in all government agencies.
Get off your high horse and get real, this is a problem that transcends the phoney and farcial left v right dichotomy.
Our government, and that includes conservatives and your President is the best government (Saudi)and oil money can buy.
Try reading something other than Front Page and Town hall Gary, for starters read Sperry's Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington and
Osama Bin Laden a Texas style Republican in Muslim Cloths
Sperry, at least, is intellectually honest enough to admit that the problem is in both parties, and pervasive through all administrations.
For my part the hard core ideologues of the right are as much a problem as the hard core ideologues of the left.
It's like the constant criticism of econuts and tree huggers, like Green Peace. Do you have any idea where they get their wealth of funds from? Not starving students and leftists professors, but from oil companies and multinational corporations.
It's past time for folk to start thinking for themselves, to be inquisitive curious, stop being lazy, doing some real research and arrive at opinions rather than lazily acquire them from Judas Goats and Pied Pipers who sing songs that they want to hear. It such people that are in essence no different at all from the Muslims whom they abhor... same song, different chorus, same tune, different words.
It is 'racist' and 'America-phobic' for CAIR and other Muslim organizations to attack the National Review. It is essential that all good Americans copy the Islamic leaders on this matter. Americans must strike back against the racist Islamic racists and America-haters. Perhaps we can consult with Louis Farrakhan Incorporated on this...
To start off with, we must launch media campaigns exposing CAIR as racist and America-phobic, preferably using a spokesmodel that looks like one of CAIR's terrorists (oops, I meant to say leaders!). Then we must clog the courts with lawsuits against the Muslim community in America to stop their racist attacks on the National Review.
Then we must organize 'peaceful' demonstrations to stop the Islamic attack on the National Review. Then we need to bribe US government officials (as Will Rogers once said America has the best COngress money can buy...) and begin pro-US legislation.
If that doesn't work, we can always Islamic-style riots.....
Well, it's the 25th and I just ordered the book from the NR book service at the web site. So I guess they haven't "caved."
One can make the argument that CAIR chose its target carefully, not suing (say) the Conservative Book Club (which is probably the org that wrote the ad copy and actually provides the NR Book Service) but NR itself in order to hit a significant opinion leader institution.
The target is indeed a special one, but CAIR should really think more than twice about taking on NR head to head. I've been an NR subscriber off and on for 40 years. There is a reserve of loyalty NR can call upon that CAIR should avoid provoking from passive somnolence into wakeful activity.
Pilgrim
An excellent source for the life of the Prophet Muhammad is Martin Lings's Muhammad : His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, ISBN 0892811706.
Given the later events (see later primary articles in Jihad Watch) t seems I was wrong and CAIR was right about picking this fight with NR.
I am sad.
Pilgrim