Jacob Laksin and Jamie Glazov write at FrontPage about the CAIR/YAF brouhaha.
It is one of the oddities of American politics that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) can describe itself as a "civil-liberties group" while crusading to crush the free-speech rights of its critics. But that's exactly what happened last week when CAIR deployed its legal arsenal in a bid to stop author Robert Spencer from speaking at a conference of the Young America's Foundation (YAF).In a letter to YAF dispatched by its lawyer, former Democratic National Committee staff counsel Joseph E. Sandler, CAIR threatened to "pursue every appropriate legal remedy" if Spencer were not immediately silenced. In the event, the YAF honorably refused to yield. The moral of the story: If CAIR disagrees with what you have to say, it'll fight furiously to deny your right to say it. To heck with civil liberties.
CAIR is not a first-time offender in this regard. Indeed, Spencer is only the most recent target of the organization's ongoing campaign to strangle free debate, especially when it turns on Islamic extremism. Other recipients of CAIR's wrath have included scholar Daniel Pipes, conservative columnist Cal Thomas, talk radio host Michael Graham, venerable news pundit Paul Harvey, National Review magazine, Fox's 24, and Andrew Whitehead, the proprietor of the website Anti-CAIR. In a telling example of CAIR's bullying tactics, Whitehead's dogged criticism of the organization got him slapped with a defamation suit. When CAIR's suit was decisively dismissed last year, the victory of an independent critic against the 32-chapter group, with its war chest filled by millions in petrodollars from Saudi royals and Gulf sheikdoms, had a certain David-vs.-Goliath resonance.
Not that CAIR's zeal to sue critics into submission has waned. Most recently, the organization has channeled its energies into harassing Zachariah Anani, a Lebanese Islamist turned Christian activist. For the intolerable offense of speaking out against militant Islam, CAIR's Canadian chapter has worked to have Anani, a Canadian citizen, brought up on hate-crimes charges. Offend CAIR's delicate sensibilities and you, too, can expect to hear from their lawyer.It's bad enough that CAIR has appointed itself unofficial censor of debate about Islam. Equally galling is that the group routinely engages in the kind of sleazy defamation it so righteously claims to detest. In its letter to YAF last week, CAIR smeared Spencer as a "a well-known purveyor of hatred and bigotry against Muslims." If that's true, though, the organization might have been expected to provide some basis for this ostensibly "well-known" charge. CAIR offered not a shred of supporting evidence.
That is because no such evidence exists. Spencer, who heads the site JihadWatch.org and is the author of a recent biography of the prophet Muhammed, The Truth About Muhammed, is a reputable scholar who draws on Islamic sources to substantiate his work. Contrary to CAIR's objections, Spencer does not engage in theological polemics. He simply reveals what Islamic sources say.
Which calls forth the question: Why would a group that, by its own account, has no truck with Islamic militants, take such heated issue with an authority on Islam who is guilty of nothing more than highlighting those features of that religion that inspire and sanction Islamic terror? If CAIR was genuinely opposed to Islamic terror and wanted to bring Islam into the modern and democratic world, why wouldn't it embrace individuals such as Spencer? After all, Spencer's work equips Muslim moderates and reformers with the knowledge they need to confront the Islamic extremists in their midst. Armed with that knowledge, Islamic reformers who undertake the monumental challenge of liberalizing Islam stand a much better chance. As Spencer himself says: "You can't reform what you won't admit needs reforming."
In the end, it is clear that what CAIR calls "bigotry" and "Islamophobia" is in fact a perfectly defensible historical argument, advanced by Spencer and others, that the roots of modern jihad terrorism can be found in classic Islamic theology. This is a matter of fact, not prejudice: if it is true, policymakers should take it into account, no matter how inconvenient it may be. Unless one thinks, as CAIR evidently does, that any critical analysis of Islam is a form of actionable hatred, the notion that Spencer is a bigot who must be drummed out of polite society looks like what it really is: the intellectually empty bullying of an extremist fringe.
Here one gets closer to the crux of last week's contretemps. Mention of its links to Islamic extremist groups invites effusive indignation from CAIR, but a review of the group's record leaves little room for ambiguity. CAIR's forerunner, the Islamic Association of Palestine, was considered by the FBI a front group for Hamas. CAIR's founder, Nihad Awad is on record supporting Hamas -- and, one may thus reasonably conclude, its terrorist attacks against Israelis. To dismiss these facts as ancient history is to ignore more recent evidence. This June, for instance, federal prosecutors named CAIR an "unindicted co-conspirator" for allegedly aiding an Islamic charity that was busy providing support to Hamas. Given these connections to a terrorist movement committed to the mass murder of Jews, for CAIR to accuse anyone of religious "bigotry" is chutzpah on a breathtaking scale.
That CAIR met with defiance last week is heartening. Still, no one should think that the organization has been chastened. If the past is any guide, those who do not mouth politically correct platitudes about Islamic terrorism will find themselves at the center of CAIR's litigious attentions. At which point, one hopes that they will remind the organization that those who stifle reasonable opposition and ally themselves with actual extremists don't defend civil liberties. They endanger them.
"Unless one thinks, as CAIR evidently does, that any critical analysis of Islam is a form of actionable hatred, the notion that Spencer is a bigot who must be drummed out of polite society looks like what it really is: the intellectually empty bullying of an extremist fringe."
Uh-oh, Ibrahim sure has opened up Pandora's Box. Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
Crushing dissent is part of the original Quran based game plan of Islam's expansion out of Arabia, not to mention within Arabia.
The more things change, the more Islam stays the same.
Excellent! truly excellent.
Excellent article!
_________________________________________________
""Unless one thinks, as CAIR evidently does, that any critical analysis of Islam is a form of actionable hatred, the notion that Spencer is a bigot who must be drummed out of polite society looks like what it really is: the intellectually empty bullying of an extremist fringe."
Uh-oh, Ibrahim sure has opened up Pandora's Box. Oh, what a tangled web we weave...
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader"........
__________________________________________________
Look what happened when the pope QUOTED something TRUE about Islam! The islamic world freaked and made all kinds of threats.
The problem with Islam is that it thinks it is entitled to force EVERYONE into submission.
Hey Islam.....submit this!
-mooning the moon god-
Greetings:
"the intellectually empty bullying of an extremist fringe"
I think this is a bit ambiguous. Is the "extremist fringe" Mr. Spencer or CAIR?
"the intellectually empty bullying BY an extremist fringe" would have been better.
The more things change, the more Islam stays the same.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at August 9, 2007 11:37 AM
Very true! Hostility, not peace, intimidation, not harmony and deception, not honesty, is the Islamic way of dealing with, in their own words 'Kafirs', belnging to 'Dar-al-Harb', not the umma of Dar al-Islam'. And we all know what Islam has in store for the 'unbelievers', who are guilty at the outset for rejecting Allah', and thus much as muslims say 'innocents should not be targeted', no Kafir is innocent and so, a target for Islamic treatment that ties in well with Qur'an:2:193 "Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and religion is only for Allah. But if they cease/desist, let there be no hostility except against infidel disbelievers.".
Thus, CAIR v/s Robert Spencer.
Will Sandler try to file charges against Spencer on behalf of CAIR, I doubt it. This is nothing but intimidation by a legal firm who is probably getting paid quite well.
Can Sandler produce any specific evidence,articles,comments,statements with attached dates, and times to the allegations that he is attempting to make on behalf of his client towards Robert?
Historically when Robert has come under fire from CAIR such as the recent debate with CAIR"S Abraham Hooper on July 30th on CNN with host Paula Zahn Note: ( she left CNN right after this airing after 6 years with them) along with Christopher Hitchens and Dennis Prager. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2007_07.php --Hooper as usual tries to tie robert to the comments that are made to the various articles that appear daily on Jihadwatch.
...CAIRs actions epitomizes the Islamic battle plan: Silence the enemy, make it a crime to critize Islam, Make it foridden to speak the truth, strike fear into all who oppose....one day we may see Mr Hooper sporting an AK47, giving rambling speeches and pointing the Islamic finger......
Brilliant! I especially liked :
At which point, one hopes that they will remind the organization that those who stifle reasonable opposition and ally themselves with actual extremists don't defend civil liberties. They endanger them.
Something the Liberals still have not figured out yet.
Robert, I've posted your YAF Speech on my YouTube page. I have a directors account, so I'm able to post it in it's entirety. People must see the threat we face. Keep up the good fight.
KC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J34Ub8q2niE
Joseph Sandler, CAIR's lawyer, has 2 degrees from Harvard.
Talk about giving Harvard a bad name.
WE ARE THE MANY, THEY ARE THE FEW!.
Western governments will not confront Islam for fear of the ‘Muslim Backlash’.
However,
concerned activists from different European nations are organising a rally outside the building of the European Parliament in Brussels on the afternoon of Tuesday 11th September from 1pm in protest against the spreading influence of Sharia Law across the continent.
Plans are being made for similar events in other European cities (and across the world) in the near future.
Your participation and support will ensure that western governments have more to fear from the anger of their own citizens.
For more information, visit: “sioe.wordpress.com”
Hasn't every major school of Islamic theology from the medieval period to the present interpreted "persecution" of Islam as including any criticism of it? Built into this highly intolerant belief system is what in actuality is the pure antithesis of so much that the First Amendment to the American Constitution stands for. Just one more reason (there are so many) why Islam and American democracy are completely incompatible.
If we didn't have such stupid people running our country, they would realize that, no matter where Muslims live, they expect everyone to live by their rules. They have no respect for the laws other countries are governed by because they are not God-given laws as Islamic law is. Democratically legislated laws are blasphemy because they come from assemblies elected in democratic elections.
CAIR thinks that Muslims are being persecuted because they can't silence those who express an opinion different from their own. In Islamic socities, it would be natural and normal to silence someone with imprisonment, or even death, who dared to express an opinion uncomplimentary of Islam or it's screwball Prophet.
CAIR's attempt to silence Robert Spencer, was instinctive, just as silencing others is instinctive to most Muslims.
Most Muslims have no intention of living by our rules, and they'll destroy our whole system, given half a chance.
Yet we're still importing them into our country.
Hasn't every major school of Islamic theology from the medieval period to the present interpreted "persecution" of Islam as including any criticism of it?
--posed by Wellington
Yes.
And any criticism of Islam is an insult to the fiend muhammad.
Any insult to the fiend muhammad is to be punished by death.
So when it comes to islam, it's the muhammadans' way or swordplay.
Which is why I say ban islam and deport all muhammadans.
It's called the instinct for self-preservation. The fiend muhammad started this war against my ancestors 1400 years ago. I'm here to finish it.
Wake up WEST!
People, I don't think you can e-mail Sandler anymore. Try and see. I guess he got deluged with mail, er, disagreeing with him about CAIR! And about his vicious and false description of Robert Spencer!
"Which is why I say ban islam and deport all muhammadans" Ynkedoodl2
Love the sentiment but what is the likelihood this will happen?
"Ban Islam and deport all Muhammadans." Exactly.
BTW, I prefer the Mohammed spelling to Muhammed because it looks even more dark-agey and barbaric. I don't think the Mohammedans like this spelling, either. Even more savage-looking is "Mahomet." !
Hey CAIR....I don't care. I'll say whatever I want to say ....you don"t like it..oh,well it sucks to be you.
Bleeding hearts and other A-holes for America's Taliban:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/08/09/schlock-crock-for-the-american-taliban-john-walker-lindh/
Bleeding hearts and other A-holes for America's Taliban:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/08/09/schlock-crock-for-the-american-taliban-john-walker-lindh/
Love the sentiment but what is the likelihood this will happen?
Posted by: Wellington
I think it will take a grass-roots movement. If small towns and villages in the US can outlaw psychics (which my town does) then sooner or later a small town will decide that a mosque full of militantly mad muhammadans is a much greater threat than palm readers. The town elders will realize that a precedent to outlaw Islam was set in India and efforts are underway to do the same in parts of Europe.
Of course such a ban would be challenged and the case will go all the way to the Supreme Court.
That's when the fun begins.
@darcy
Some other choices:
Mussulman, Musselman, Mussulmann, Musselmann, Musulman, Muselman, Musulmann, Muselmann
yet nothing quite says it like "muhammadan"
cuz,
muhammadans worship muhammad!
Ynkedoodl2: As things stand now, and I write as a lawyer here, the First Amendment protects Islam and Muslims far more than it would those who would seek to ban Islam from any American community. I loathe Mohammed's religion and find it repulsive in many respects and inimical to the future well being of America and the West, but our very laws and constitutions are constructed in such a manner that they will protect Islam as it spreads like a cancer, a true parasite, through Western societies. As I've posted before, it is Islamic demographics even more than Islamic terrorism that can do the West in. Unless major changes are made to our laws and constitutions, I see no way presently of stopping the spread of mankind's most troubling belief system, either here in America or throughout the rest of the Western civilized world.
Not to worry Mr. Spencer, it would appear that cair as always playing the victim, is unarmed. The lights are on them and all can see through the facade, so like all good cockroaches are looking for rocks to hide under.
@Wellington
Thank you for that information.
Nevertheless, if I could find enough like-minded people, I would attempt the banning of islam from my town. Let the chips fall where they will, I would have established a precedent.
As far as the USA protecting all religions, it is time to demonstrate that islam is not a religion but an idealogy that is a clear and present danger to the United States of America.
What if my religion requires me to perform vile and debased actions? Human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, cruelty to children, women? Am I allowed to practice this "religion" in public.
How is it that a town can ban palm readers and not ban the violent, sexist, anti-semitic and morally depraved cult of muhammad.
LOL @ topic...
Reminded me of last years California Gubernatorial elections choice:
1) CONAN
2) Phil the pahblum-weenie from accounting
LOL...a no-brainer, just like this topic!
Robert's too well-armed with the age-old enemy of islam: REALITY.
Ynkedoodl2: Very sympathetic to what you write about Islam. I think you and I would have few differences, if any, where this decrepit excuse of a religion is concerned. But as for the legal standing Islam and Muslims can expect in America, here it is: A religion can profess virtually any belief it wishes (palm reading doesn't rise to the level of a religion, although I'm sure there are at least a few lawyers in Manhattan and San Francisco and other such places who would be prepared to argue that it does). Such is protected by the First Amendment. What is not necessarily protected by this amendment is acting upon a particular belief. For instance, take the faith of Christian Science (which I've long held to be an oxymoron). A Christian Scientist has every right under the Constitution to believe that modern medicine is not the way to go to alleviate a particular physical distress, even one of the most dire kind, say an acute appendicitis. What the Christian Scientist arguably does not have the right to do via the First Amendment is to make that decision for a child of theirs.
Similarly, a Satan worshiper (of course, a loser through and through) can believe that sacrificing a human being once a year to the greater glory of Satan (which Allah resembles many times I might add) is a key component of their "faith." What that Satan worshiper cannot do is to act upon that belief pursuant to First Amendment protections. So, I'm sure you can see the difficulty by now. Any damn Muslim can say anything he or she wants, minus an immediate and unambiguously clear incitement to violence, and use the First Amendment to do so quite successfully. And even those Muslims who would act upon their violent belief system will be looked upon only as individuals who are culpable, not their entire faith. After all, a neo-Nazi can spout any nonsense he wants about the greatness of Hitler and the need to establish a Nazi regime here in America. All this is protected speech. Unless the bastard acts upon this in some concrete way, nothing can be done to him.
This is where we stand today with Islam, which is why I am 100% convinced that unless we change our constitution and laws (more importantly the former) we are essentially helpless as a nation to the spread of the evil creed of Mohammed. Muslims have us right now where the hair is short and this is why I decided to begin posting on this site above all other reasons------to inform as many individuals as I can, to the best of my ability, that as things presently stand there is no way to keep Islam from spreading in America in any legal way. We got big trouble here.
Muslims cannot engage in speech that involves treason or sedition against the United States, no matter what Allah or Mohammed tells them.In one example the blind shiek was sentenced to life in prison for the speech crime of sedition a crime that can also result in the death penalty. In 2005 Ali Timimi was convicted of soliciting treason along with nine other counts and sentence to life in prison. Timimi's crimes were in relation to a speech he gave a few days after 9/11.
Timimi convicted of soliciting treason
Roxane: The example you gave falls into that gray area where mere speech gives way to very possible action, in this case Islamic terrorist training camps. Just as one can exhort his followers to burn down Washington DC, unless he passes out torches to do so (or some such thing), his speech is still protected. It's interestng, from a legal standpoint, to see just how far the Constitution can be stretched before it is violated. The Islamic faith will stretch it to its max. Americans as a whole need to know this.
Defense lawyers, who vowed to appeal the verdict and sentence, said they understood that Brinkema had no choice.
"I'm very saddened today that this has come to this,'' MacMahon said as he concluded his courtroom remarks.'
- from the article linked by Roxane
The entire tone of that article is troubling, displaying an empathy felt by many in the courtroom, including the judge, towards the defendant.
"He[Ali Timimi] then compared himself to the Greek philosopher Socrates".
Good grief!
Thank God for those "congressionally mandated minimum sentencing requirements".
The way the judge appears almost apologetic towards Ali Timimi and the personal sadness expressed by McMahon shows how much trouble we are in.
Mike_W: Agree with you completely about the judge and defense lawyer in this case. One of the very weakest links in our fight against what the Islamic religion intends for us here in America is the ignorance (including the lack of common sense), arrogance and false compassion that so many in our judiciary and legal profession today are possessed of where the faith of Islam is concerned. Compounding all this is the fact that judges and lawyers, particularly the former, are very powerful persons indeed who ordinarily have to answer to no one.
Mike_W,
The judge is the same judge who presided over the trail of 20th hijacker Zacharias Moussaui(sp) and sentenced him to life in supermax. The Timimi case received quite a bit of attention and was discussed on the O'Reilly factor with some saying the sentence was excessive.O'Reilly felt the sentence was excessive though he said he would shed no tears for Timimi.Timimi was convicted based solely on a speech he gave within days of 9/11.It's also interesting to note that Timimi was an "unindited co-conspirator" in another terror related trail (like CAIR) before being tried for solicting treason.Along with being convicted of soliciting treason Timimi was also convicted of solicting others to wage war against the United States, conspiring to support the Taliban and soliciting the use of firearms and explosives.The firearms and explosives charge is one of the charges that carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison, mandated by the US congress. That charge is specifically terrorism related.
As a former Democratic National Committee staff counsel, Joseph E. Sandler will be on the short-list for a Supreme Court appointment, or possibly Attorney General, should a Democrat win the presidency next year.
Scary!
Even more scary is the thought of all the power that the federal government usurped via the Patriot Act being in the hands of someone like Hillary.
Re: "It is one of the oddities of American politics that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) can describe itself as a "civil-liberties group" while crusading to crush the free-speech rights of its critics".
People are governed by names and only a few look at the reality behind the carefully crafted appearance of CAIR. Hitler knew people are governed by names when he had his Stormtroopers call themselves "Sports Clubs" after the Wiemar government banned his head breakers. CAIR follows similar tactics.
CAIR also follows Hitler's recommended tactics of "a constant barrage of lies and slander" to break people who criticise them, as well as Hitler's recomendation to (at the same time as they slander) praise the "weaklings" (as Hitler called them) who appease CAIR, praise them for their "tolerance", their "moderation", their "fairness". Such tactics are straight out of Mein Kampf.
CAIR is a very sinister fascist organization presenting themselves as a civil rights organization. Their appearance is as misleading as Hitler's Brownshirts presenting themselves as "Sports Clubs".
What is really good about many Muslims with an agenda to shut people up...they can't shut their own mouths. They aren't really smart but that is a good thing.