Every time the Council on American-Islamic Relations injects itself into an issue or incident, it invites the question: What is CAIR? Who have been among its founders? Who is still among its leading staff? Where does its funding come from? Where does it stand, how clearly has it expressed itself, on the use of violence as an instrument of Jihad? How clearly has CAIR urged its members to cooperate fully with the American government in its attempts to protect people from Muslim terrorists? How clearly has CAIR distanced itself from those many passages in the Qur'an, those many stories in the Hadith, those many details in the Life of Muhammad (the Sira) that would alarm any intelligent non-Muslim made aware of them?
What has CAIR done to insure that Muslims will not "interpret" those passages "incorrectly"? And do those who run, or belong to, or support CAIR really think that closer inspection of the texts, and tenets, of Islam -- which they always unwittingly invite -- are to their advantage?
Do they really think that the concerns about Islam that many Americans have will decrease if they learn more about what Islam inculcates and ignore the sentimentalism of George Bush? Bush’s messianic sentimentalism has prevented, not promoted, a correct understanding of Islam. It has led to the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan that are predicated on the baseless notion that we can "win" Muslim hearts and minds, and that if only Muslims are made prosperous, and kept together in this or that political construct, their hostility to non-Muslims (inculcated by Qur'an and reinforced by the study of the Sunnah) will somehow magically diminish.
CAIR wishes to silence or intimidate, but failing that, keeps emitting a steady fog to hide the bleak reality, to distract us, to confuse us, to keep our minds unclear. It won't work, because Infidels anywhere can now see what Muslims are doing to Infidels, to their societies and states, everywhere. In New York they can see the plot to blow up the Parliament in New Delhi. In Philadelphia they can see what Muslims have done to Christian villagers in the southern Philippines. In Boston they can learn about the decapitation, by Muslims, of Buddhists in southern Thailand, or the blowing up of the Buddhist statues of Bamiyan. In Albuquerque they can find out about the Muslim murders of individual non-Muslims, and threats to murder others (including homosexuals) in Amsterdam. And we can all see what is happening all over Western Europe, where -- despite the best efforts of the ignorant, or stupid, or fearful, or confused, political and media elites, those outside of those elites have the evidence of their senses, of what they see around them, of what they observe daily, or hear about from others.
Can CAIR really hope to prevent Infidels from clicking on a site that will give them five or six translations of the Qur'an, arranged synoptically, so that Infidels can learn what the Qur'an teaches? Or the same or other site that give the main Hadith? Can CAIR keep Infidels from learning about the facts of Muhammad's life, including the mass decapitation of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the murders of Asma bint Marwan (for a handful of satirical verses) and Abu Afak, the attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis in order to steal their property and their women, the consummated marriage to little Aisha when she was nine, and still playing with her toys and swinging on a swing? Do they think Infidels will remain permanently unaware that Islam teaches that the only division of humanity that counts is that between Believers and Unbelievers, that is, between Muslims and Infidels, and that between the two there must exist a state of permanent war -- though not necessarily at all times of open warfare or qitaal -- and that this state will continue until all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, are removed, everywhere? Does CAIR think the distinction between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb can forever be kept from the prying eyes and curious brains of Infidels? Does it think that the role of Muhammad, as the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, can forever be overlooked by Infidels, or successfully explained away, or kept from criticism, by CAIR, when it explains why that learned Shi'a theologian, the Ayatollah Khomeini, on coming to power promptly reduced the marriageable age of Iranian girls to nine years?
What does CAIR think it can get away with in a society that refuses to be intimidated, and when too many people can see the disjunct between what CAIR claims and the grim reality of what Muslims are inculcated with, and the way in which they respond to such inculcation everywhere in the world in what now can be seen, and should perhaps be so labeled in our newspapers and television, as the "Jihad News." Jihad -- the "struggle" to remove, as noted above, all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam (so that all of the earth, that belongs to Allah, yields to Islam, and Muslims rule, everywhere) -- is nowadays furthered most effectively not by terrorism, but by deployment of the Money Weapon (the Muslim oil states having received, without the least effort, eleven or twelve trillion dollars since 1973 alone), carefully targetted campaigns of Da'wa (aimed at the economically and psychically marginal, including prisoners), and demographic conquest, which is in Muslim circles discussed openly as the certain method for taking over, in lieu of military conquest, the Bilad al-kufr, or Lands of the Infidels.
Can CAIR believe itself capable of shutting out all of this information, especially when those who go to the websites of the growing number of "defectors" from the Army of Islam can find this all set out? Or, for that matter, they can find the same stuff all set out at the websites run by Muslims themselves, but intended for an audience of fellow Muslims. Does CAIR think that non-Muslims have no way of eavesdropping, or dropping in, on such online conversations?
Of course they do. They've even said so:
I think Nihad Awad is right.
Good article...you have a thousand valid questions about CAIR, but my suspicion is, they won't answer any one of them.
But their silence gives them away to those who know how to listen to silence...
I kept looking for you to use the word miasma in this article, Hugh. I have believed that I have a very large vocabulary at my command since I finished high school, but your writing leads me to reach for my dictionary more than any writer I can recall. It's all good, I have a few new words in my quiver.
The Jihadists have enjoyed a long history of being very open about the nature of their attacks on western civilization without the vast majority of the public understanding what's right in front of us. I hope you are correct that this situation is ever more rapidly changing; that people in general are becoming more aware of the threat that jihad presents.
I have been sharing my views with a growing number of coworkers. I sit near a Persian Muslim and an Armenian who doesn't eat bacon. The Turks pretty much killed all the Christian Armenians, right?. So anyway I'm subtle and quiet in my discussions in my own office. I also spend a good part of my time in areas that are closed to employees without a government security clearance - virtually no Muslims in the closed areas. That's where I speak openly to inform coworkers what I can about the true nature and objectives of jihad and urge them to not take my word for it, but to visit this website. It's working. I've enlightened several people. As soon as I see them write down the URL for JW in their planner I think I may have reached one more mind.
Spread the word.
CAIR is a synonym for TAQIYYA.
If the social engineers who are shaping our education system keep getting away with what they are doing to our children, of course CAIR can get away with it.
Since "racist" is the worst thing anyone can call you, it is the most effective way to silence the opposition. It works for CAIR. And it is working for Obama.
This video shows you how devastating political correctness can be when the race card is used in congress:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=36431
These are interesting times.
Here is a posting, from another commenter on this website, from August last year, which I thought interesting, and copied, and kept. I will repost it here - thanks, dp111, for your insight! - for the benefit of new visitors.
"It is a pity that Muslims decided to come to the West, and then tried to force the Islamic agenda on Westerners.
"The default position of the West is to critically examine any idea or thought that comes before it.
"This examination, particularly by Robert Spencer, has led to the revelation of what the Koran and Hadiths constitute, and the thoughts, actions, and the depravity of the founder of Islam.
"Public interest in Islam as a consequence of 9/11, has led all this to become public knowledge, where previously it was the preserve of scholars.
"A case in point - the Crusades are now regarded, and correctly so, as a desperate defence of Christians and Christian lands, from repeated and eventually successful Muslim invasion.
"None of what we see now would have happened if Muslims had not come to the West, or just lived like Hindus and others. Now the cat is out of the bag.
"The perverted nature of Mohammed has been revealed.
Inevitably, this has led to the caricature of Mohammed, and given his lamentable character, ridicule.
"And not just to Westerners, but also to tens of millions of Muslims, who otherwise would have continued to be good Muslims. But now they know. And no matter what they do, the seeds of doubt have been planted in Muslim minds, even in Muslim nations.
"None of the contempt of Mohammed and ridicule heaped on him would have happened if Muslims had stayed in Muslim lands.
"Islam would still have had respect in the West, born of ignorance albeit, and Muslims in Muslim lands, would have been content in ignorance as well.
"The problem for Muslims now is how to wipe out the contempt, caricature and ridicule that have been heaped on Mohammed. This is what this fatwa is about. There are only a couple of choices
"1. Accept reality. In which case the caricature, ridicule etc, stand for posterity.
"2. Fight back. The only way the caricature and ridicule etc can be expunged is for Muslims to conquer the Western world, and make it Islamic. Then and only then, will Mohammed's honour be avenged, and the shame erased.
"Of course, the last means that Muslims will have to conquer the West with bloodshed. Unlikely.
"It is more likely that the reverse will happen. Islam will then be erased.
"If OTHH they don't do anything, the canker of contempt etc, will sit there in the Islamic world, and eventually destroy Islam. This is the dilemma that Muslims have put themselves in.
Hard choice."
- Posted by: DP111 at August 15, 2007 5:29 PM
The best line in the posting? - "The default position of the West is to critically examine any idea or thought that comes before it."
Certainly, thanks to the vast effort of Muslim propaganda, and thanks to certain civilisational ills of the modern west (independent from Islam), our official leaders, religious, political and intellectual, have largely failed to undertake that critical examination;
but many, many ordinary citizens have *not* failed.
There was enough left of 'the west' for a Bat Yeor and an Andrew Bostom to follow their instincts, conduct their researches, find publishers; enough left of 'the west' for a Robert Spencer to stand up and conduct that critical examination; enough left of 'the West' for an Oriana Fallaci to write her books and convince, among others, a Geert Wilders.
Every person who, on becoming a commenter here, has related how, after 9/11, or some other defining event (e.g. Beslan - that was what brought the English poster, 'Granny Weatherwax' to jihadwatch), they got their 'wake-up call' and set out to examine the Qur'an, and Islam, and reached the exact same conclusions that many other intelligent people in the past, such as John Quincy Adams or Winston Churchill, had reached before them - This Thing Is Dangerous, This Thing Must Be Resisted.
Sorry - that final paragraph is incomplete - it needs a closing phrase, something like 'is proof that the great Western tradition of independent and critical curiosity is still alive'.
New visitors, who have only come aboard in the past three months or so, might enjoy Mr Hugh Fitzgerald's lovely essay, 'The Unsung History Boys', posted here in June this year.
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/021346.php
A bumper sticker for this article:
Don't Know? Don't CAIR!
Sorry, my kids hate my puns.
I should add that that essay by Mr Fitzgerald, posted as a stand-alone in June this year, first appeared in the jihadwatch comments field on July 25 2006.
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/012373.php
(scroll down to find it).
There are two further comments, below it, one by a poster named 'Caroline', and one by Hugh in response, that are also worth reading, and will add to the subject under discussion today, the subject of Infidels seeing through the smoke and mirrors to the reality of Islam, what it teaches, what it does; and how those Infidels who have seen, can best share their knowledge with others.
For those who can't be bothered clicking on the link, here is part of Hugh's second comment in that thread, which has stuck in my mind, and with which I concur completely, for it precisely describes my own experience:
"Ordinarily, as you read more about something, you more and more see the thing in its complexity, and shades of gray, and are more and more hesitant to pass judgment.
"With Islam, the more you find out about what it teaches, the more you find out about the example of Muhammad, the more you find out about what Islam does to its adherents, the more you find out about Jihad in time and space, the more you find out about the fate of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, the more horrified you become."
Dumblesdorarmy:
Another trend is for the West to apologise for any of its own ideas.
From the Age newspaper, 11/10/08: Francis Macnab, of the Uniting Church, on the Ten Commandments. Too negative, he decided, and posted billboards accordingly.
Rather stupid, I know. The Christian Church, in its vulnerable orientation in the religious marketplace, is keen to downplay things like restraint which may not appeal to the modern mind.
But the surprising part was that his own church reprimanded him, and its synod asked him to remove the billboards and "apologise for any offence they caused, especially to Jews and Muslims".
What?! He is to apologise ESPECIALLY to Jews and Muslims? Why? Why at all, let alone especially? Am I missing something? I cannot work this out, except to imagine that this is another example of the West losing the plot.
The MSM disagrees with the Bush Administration on everything except the notion of the Religion of peace. Somewhere in that sentence is the rock wall the rest of us need to climb. With few places of purchase for the journey. CAIR is but one of the outcroppings along the way.
See if I CAIR!
Good article...you have a thousand valid questions about CAIR, but my suspicion is, they won't answer any one of them.
Posted by: duh_swami at October 16, 2008 5:41 PM
CAIR doesn't have to answer any questions. As long as POTUS is on the front-line protecting CAIR: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html even at the prders of his Saudi masters, CAIR is pretty much get away with spittin gon America's face, just like POTUS does. In our system of govt. key politicians need to be pocketed. CAIR, Al-Sauds, Bin Ladens and wahhabbis know that all it take sto pocket a politician is cash. Why do you think Bin Ladens "invested" in Arbusto? Remember, POTUS is also the Commander-in-chief, who can turn the key both ways. He can either turn against the terrorists or take terrorists as allies, which is what Bush did right after 9/11. But then, he was under heavy burden of Saudi investments and family-obligations. Ofcourse, cince in politics, cash and votes matter, welfare of USA comes a distant last, if at all... only Americans don;t knwo this, which serves CAIR, Al-Sauds, Al-Bushs and Bin Ladens well.
"Obama is represented in the suit by Joe Sandler, lawyer for the Council of American-Islamic Relations, which has proven links to Islamic terrorists. Instead of releasing the requested documents to the court, Sandler on October 6 asked for delay of discovery until after the election."
http://www.wketchup.com/newsreleases/081016.php