The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which the Baltimore Sun never gets around to telling you is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case, has claimed that "anti-Muslim hate crimes" have risen sharply in the U.S. since 9/11. In fact, the rate of such crimes has actually dropped. They know well that victimhood is big business: insofar as they can claim protected victim status for Muslims in the U.S., they can deflect unwanted scrutiny and any critical examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism.
That's most likely why CAIR and others have not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating "hate crimes." They want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.
And that is what is happening here. The behavior of the non-Muslims in these two incidents, if reported accurately here, is wrong, inexcusable and unjustifiable by any standard. It is likewise inexcusable and unjustifiable to claim, as CAIR's Honest Ibe Hooper does here, that these jerks were fired up by the Internet or talk radio, and not by the many, many acts of violence and hatred committed by Muslims in the name of Islam around the world every day. Not that one act of violence and hate justifies another, but if Hooper really wants to see these incidents stop (and as I explained above, he actually needs them), he would address the roots of jihad violence within Islamic communities, and not try to get non-Muslim anti-jihad outlets shut down.
His statement here, meanwhile, is of a piece with the Organization of the Islamic Conference's jihad against free speech. Nor is it the first time CAIR has revealed itself to be an enemy of free speech.
"Muslim organization blames talk radio in attacks," by Matthew Hay Brown for the Baltimore Sun, August 31 (thanks to Islam In Action):
After attacks on Muslims in New York and California, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations is targeting what he says is "growing anti-Muslim rhetoric" on the Internet and talk radio.CAIR is seeking federal hate crime charges in the attacks on a mother and daughter in Smithtown, N.Y., and a taxi driver in Pleasanton, Calif.
In the New York incident, which occurred on Aug. 20, a Long Island man has been charged with second-degree aggravated harassment after threatening to kill and attempting to rundown the mother and daughter, each of whom was wearing an abaya, a black robe that covers the head and body.
According to a report in Newsday by former Sun colleague Sumathi Reddy, the mother told police that she had been at a gas station when a man approached from behind and yelled, "Take that stuff off. What do you think it is, Halloween?"
The woman said the man "kept striking a match on a matchbook like if I was to start pumping the gas he would throw the match at me."
The man said he had done nothing wrong, according to the Newsday report.
"They shouldn't be allowed to wear that around here," he said in a statement to police. "This is not Iraq. They should not be dressing like that here. Send them back to Iraq."
In California, two men have been charged in the beating last week of taxi driver Jaswinder Bangar after he picked them up from a Pleasanton bar, according to a report in the San Jose Mercuary [sic] News. Police said the men called Bangar derogatory names as they punched him, breaking a tooth and causing lacerations that required several stitches to close.
In a statement on Monday, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said "Our nation's religious, political and community leaders need to address the growing anti-Muslim rhetoric on the Internet and on talk radio that can lead to such incidents."
Honest Ibe doesn't seem to realize how easy -- yes, easy! -- it would be to stamp out "anti-Muslim rhetoric" once and for all without destroying the freedom of speech. Here's how. If Muslims want to end "anti-Muslim rhetoric" instantaneously, here's how they can do it:
1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.
If Muslims do those five things, voila! "Anti-Muslim rhetoric" will no longer be heard anywhere. (But of course, then those useful "hate" incidents would dry up also, and then where would CAIR be?)
Amen to that.
"If Muslims want to end "anti-Muslim rhetoric" instantaneously, here's how they can do it."
Muslims don't want to.
I remember the leftist Koolaid-Korps trying the same thing after the Oklahoma City bombing, only the Internet wasn't in widespread use at that point, so they just went after conservative talk radio.
Of course, CAIR knows playing the victim card wins it friends among elements on the left who never met a victim (real or imagined) they didn't like -- especially if there's a multicultural angle. As such, they find common cause with the "illiberal liberals" -- i.e., leftists who defy the values of a liberal democracy by seeking to silence the ideologically incorrect, especially through false equivalences with more sinister elements of society.
Interesting, an American tells a foreigner wearing desert clothing in a temperate zone how silly she looks. If it were white instead of black it would be a ghost costume for Halloween.
This is the USA you have the right to be offended. I saw nothing in the post about him threatening to kill anyone, or run them over.
Could this be an exaggeration (lie) on the Muslim's part? If so to accuse someone of a death threat is a serious crime and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
To the C.A.I.R. spokesman...rhetoric is part of free speech and protected by the constitution, get over it.
Telling someone they looks ridiculous dresses like a mummy or a ghost, or for Halloween, isn't a verbal attack, it is the free expression of OPINION, which is also protected by the constitution.
If someone chooses to dress like that, bringing attention to themselves, then they should expect to get funny looks and verbal challenges and comments from people here is a free society. Get over it.
When Vietnam was being fought, there was a bumper sticker that read America Love It Or Leave It. I think it's time that attitude be revived.
Robert, your five points are precisely those things that Muslims could do to allay the well-founded fears of the West about their aggressive intentions. But you also know that a good, pious Muslim cannot do them, as it would violate the tenets of their faith and subject them to charges of apostasy and being kicked out of the Ummah, possibly even also a death sentence if certain of their "scholars" had their way. It's a sort of irresistible force-meets-immovable object situation, but it's one the West has encountered before. As much as one would like to think that peaceful means could be used to resolve the conflict, one also suspects that more traditional and time honored methods will be employed.
if the mosque chose to follow the five points they would become known as Good Citizens who seek the greater good and wellbeing of the larger community.
that is not the intent.
should the mosque choose to follow the five fine points suggested, they would become known as good citizens who seek the greater good and wellbeing of the larger community.
unfortunately, that is not the intent. the mosque has redefined "GREATER GOOD" to mean imposition of Sharia Law and subjugation of nonMuslims.
Thanks for the hat tip Mr. Spencer.
The whole argument avoids the part that ole mo mixed up killing with salvation.
He mixed up imperialistic conquering of the lands and subjugation and making us all subservient to islamic rule and laws, via Jihad, with the salvation of each of these muslim's souls. Those who do not speak up are the ones either who are giving of their wealth to the jihadists (per ole mo's instructions if they don't want to do the fighting), waging da'wa combined with a lot of taqiyya and kitman, and hoping their pathetic behinds get to that orgy in the sky.
This is why islam is so incidious of a fascist movement. It has dulled the thinking of anyone who has the ability, and scared the rest of them. Only the bravest of the brave leave it all, but then they are kicked out of their family and friend's circles, at the very least - or killed, at the very most.
Until we realize that islam makes doing bad things - killing, lying, enslaving, oppression/persecution, etc all have a veil of goodness wrapped around it, then we will just be wishing for this or that. Islam requires that non-Muslims DO SOMETHING BEFORE THEY GET THEIR ROOTS INTO OUR LANDS. Our natures are to hope that they are telling the truth and until more of us find out that even the moderates are deceiving us if they tell us mo is a perfect man, and anything about islam is good.
Oh, by the way, I forgot to post that DOING SOMETHING BEFORE THEY GET THEIR ROOTS INTO OUR LANDS - means that I joined Act! for America and work to make people educated about islam, sharia laws, etc.
The push to silence voices -- and the dissemination of the truth -- is on, from every side now.
CAIR would not be so emboldened if the group had not already had some success along those lines. Remember what happened to radio talk-show host Michael Graham back in 2005?
Hey CAIR,
CrazyIslam.com
Enjoy!
I'm not sure that if the 5 points Spencer outlines for CAIR to do were done, then what they call "Islamophobic rhetoric" (but what we call reasonable criticism) would end. The reason it would likely not end is because the mere "focusing" (#1), the mere "renouncing" -- even definitively so -- and "clarifying" (#2), the mere "teaching Muslims" (#3), the mere "beginning comprehensive programs" (#4), and the mere "actively working with Western law enforcement officials" (#5), is not going to stop Muslims from continuing their jihad in its myriad flavors. In fact, what those 5 points will do is give them a way to visibly do some taqiyya that seems to be a form of cooperation. But underneath those 5 activities Spencer lists, nothing will change. If the West ever did get around to implementing them, Muslims will just become craftier, wilier, cleverer -- and will dutifully comply with feigned obsequiousness, level-lidded and serpent-tongued behind smiling white teeth. Meanwhile, all that "focusing" and "renouncing" and "teaching" and "programs" and "working" will do little to change the real problem and may do a lot to help Muslims continue the deceptive game.
Is that what we want?
As for vigilante violence against Muslims, it has been amazingly rare in the West, given the amount of outrageous violence and rhetoric coming from Muslims in the past decade. In all honesty, one doesn't know if this reflects a strength of the West, or a weakness...
Except all those things would mean an essential end to orthodox Islam, and as such no sincere Muslim can ever implement your suggestions. The fact of the matter is that there can be no reform of Islam. Those things that prevent Islam from ever having peaceful and mutual coexistence with non-Muslims are the very core doctrines of Islam. If they are removed, Islam ceases to be Islam. At the end of the day the only viable solution to the West's Islamic problem is to end all Muslim immigration and to prevent the expansion of Islamic hegemony beyond the barren deserts of the Middle East and North Africa.
They need to do no such thing Mr. Hooper. In fact, our religious and political leaders need to wake up and acknowledge the very real danger that Islam poses to Western civilisation. In Western society we believe that we have the right to put everything to scrutiny, and that includes Islam. If Mr. Hooper doesn't like that then he can pack his bags and move to Iran or Saudi Arabia (I'm sure we here a Jihadwatch.org could even help pay for his one-way ticket). Ibrahim Hooper is an anti-Christian, anti-American, pro-jihad zealot and Americans need to stand up to his Islamic supremacist thuggery.
As for myself, I will gladly stand with Robert Spencer, Michael Savage, and the other talk radio and internet figures that CAIR is hoping to shut down.
Hi CAIR, how about showing us the security footage from the gas station? If it's true then this dude has bigger issues than Islamic hatred, he needs a smack upside the head for recklessly endangering public safety.
Seriously, what kind of idiot would start striking matches in the open at a service station?
And you'll need better evidence for hate crime than an assault against a cabbie. I don't know if you've ever been a victim of a violent crime Ibe, but salty language is often associated with the act.
"...If Mr. Hooper doesn't like that then he can pack his bags and move to Iran or Saudi Arabia (I'm sure we here a Jihadwatch.org could even help pay for his one-way ticket)." -- Posted by Virgil @ September 1, 2009 8:07 PM.
Count me in for a hundred.
Thuggish Hamas-linked CAIR tries to use Muslim victimhood incidents to shut down Internet and talk radio resistance to jihad
....................
Then there's this disturbing item:
"Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet"
"A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/
....................
What sort of "emergency" would trigger a shutdown of the internet? I find the implications of this bill terrifying.