Omer Subhani is a CAIR-South Florida rep (maybe we should ask him what happened to our old pal Ahmed Bedier, although I’m not sure we could believe the answer) who is one of the very few people who has had the courage (got to give the man credit where credit is due) actually to try to show where what I’ve said is wrong, instead of merely (like so many vaunted academics — hi, Dr. Esposito! Hi, Dr. Ernst! Hi, Dr. Safi! Hi, Dr. Ahmed!) asserting that it is and leaving it at that, knowing that that in itself will be enough to gull the easily-led. Subhani, however, despite his energy (here you can find Parts I, II, III, IV, V VI, VII, and VIII) is not doing so well in the truth and accuracy department, but give the man a break: what CAIR rep has ever done well in that department?
His Part IX is called “Condemning Attacks on Non Muslims,” and my oh my, is he steamed about my post here:
Robert Spencer is whining again how Muslims have not (according to him) condemned attacks on non Muslims by radical Muslims. He says the following: “It would be refreshing to see Muslim spokesmen in the West who say they oppose Al-Zawahri to explain why his reasoning is wrong here, and why American civilians killed by Al-Qaeda on 9/11 are indeed innocent and cannot lawfully be killed even on Islamic grounds. But I won’t be holding my breath. For one thing, you will notice that the questioner asks him about the legitimacy of killing innocent civilians in a way that makes it clear that he is only angry about Al-Qaeda killing Muslims. Where is the indignation, where is the anger from Muslims when Al-Qaeda kills non-Muslims?”
There are three requests here that I see. I will answer them one by one as briefly as possible.
1. Why is Zawahiri’s reasoning wrong?
Because he and his group of fanatics go against the very basic rules of combat laid out in practically every school of fiqh. The Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, said very clearly that non combatants are not allowed to be harmed. The very wise and erudite Shaikh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti said in his fatwa that “Imam al-Subki ( raDiy-Allahu-anhu.gif may Allâh be pleased with him!) made it unequivocally clear what scholars have understood from this prohibition in which the standard rule of engagement taken from it is that: “[a Muslim soldier] may not kill any women or any child-soldiers unless they are in combat directly, and they can only be killed in self-defence” [al-Nawawi, Majmû’, 21:57].”
He added further that “even a novice student of fiqh would be able to see that the first dâbit above concerns already a non-Muslim opponent in the case of a state of war having been validly declared by a Muslim authority against a particular non-Muslim enemy, even when that civilian is a subject or in the care [dhimma] of the hostile non-Muslim state [Dâr al-Harb]. If this is the extent of the limitation to be observed with regards to non-Muslim civilians associated with a declared enemy force, what higher standard will it be in cases if it is not a valid war or when the status of war becomes ambiguous?” Indeed. If Zawahiri had been trained in traditional fiqh he would know this, and he possibly does, but ignores it or is unaware of it and thus commits major crimes that he should be brought to justice for in this life and will most certainly be taken to task for in the next, God willing.
Al-Akiti’s fatwa, linked above, is just great. I have long regarded it as one of the very few clear and theologically coherent (from an Islamic standpoint, of course) attempts to argue that today’s jihad is not legitimate. And he is very clear that non-Muslims such as those in the World Trade Center are non-combatants who should not be fought. In that he clearly disagrees with Zawahri, Anjem Choudary and other jihadists who have declared non-Muslim civilians to be kuffar harbi, infidels in a state of war with Islam, and thus legitimately to be fought.
It is also worth noting, however, that Al-Akiti’s fatwa (which is well worth studying closely) is only about whether today’s jihad is legitimate. In arguing against that legitimacy, it is of great value, but it leaves intact the entire traditional framework of Islamic jurisprudence, which creates a theological foundation justifying warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.
I am grateful for Al-Akiti’s fatwa, but I would have even more regard for him if he had overturned this framework instead of leaving it intact, declaring unequivocally that Muslims and non-Muslims should live in peace as equals in a state that is not governed by Islamic law on an indefinite basis. As it is he allows someone else to argue that circumstances are such that it is now opportune to wage jihad against and subjugate the unbelievers.
But as for Subhani, he just gets worse later on:
The organization I work for, CAIR, has been persistent in its condemnations of terrorism perpetrated by such radicals against Muslims and non Muslims. Immediately following the events of 9-11, CAIR issued a strong condemnation of the murderous acts. CAIR continues to condemn Hamas, Hezbollah and anyone else who commits unjust violence in the name of Islam.
CAIR condemns Hamas and Hizballah? Where and when? I myself once wasted an hour of my life on a contentious radio show with CAIR’s vile, vicious and venomous Hussam Ayloush, and I asked him repeatedly to condemn Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist organizations. He hurled a lot of insults, but never quite got around to condemning either. And this is a story that has been repeated again and again. Here is another example of it. And here is a dhimmi trying to explain away the manifest fact that CAIR doesn’t condemn either of those jihad terror groups.
And now here comes Omer Subhani saying practically offhandedly that CAIR condemns both. All right, I’ll bite. Where and when? “Bring your proof, if you be truthful,” Mr. Subhani!
Meanwhile, as far as CAIR’s general condemnation of terrorism goes, it is far more vague and paltry than Al-Akiti’s. And how much is it worth? Let’s look at the record.
CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad. Awad had been the President of the Islamic Association of Palestine, and Ahmad its Public Relations Director. Ibrahim Hooper worked for the IAP too. The IAP, which was shut down by the government in 2005 for funding terrorism, was founded in 1981 by a Hamas operative, Mousa Abu Marzook. According to a report dated August 14, 2001, from the Immigration and Naturalization Services report, the IAP was dedicated to “publishing and distributing HAMAS communiqués printed on IAP letterhead, as well as other written documentation to include the HAMAS charter and glory records, which are tributes to HAMAS’ violent ‘successes.'” The same report also stated that IAP had received “approximately $490,000 from [Mousa Abu] Marzook during the period in which Marzook held his admitted role as a HAMAS leader.”
A former chief of the FBI’s counter-terrorism department, Oliver Revell, called the IAP “a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants.” Nihad Awad stated in 1994 at Barry University in Florida: “I’m in support of Hamas movement.” (However, now he says he isn’t, although he has not, to my knowledge, actually condemned the organization.)
Then there are the arrest records of some former CAIR officials.
Randall Todd (“Ismail”) Royer was CAIR’s communications specialist and civil rights coordinator. He was part of the “Virginia jihad group,” which was indicted on forty-one counts of “conspiracy to train for and participate in a violent jihad overseas.” They were accused of association with Lashkar-e-Taiba, a jihad terrorist group.
Matthew Epstein of the Investigative Project has said that Royer helped recruit the other member of the group to the jihad while he was working for CAIR.
Royer was also among those charged in a separate indictment saying that they conspired to help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban fight against American troops in Afghanistan. And Royer admitted to a grand jury that he had already waged jihad warfare in Bosnia — with and that his commander took orders from Osama bin Laden.
According to Daniel Pipes, “Royer eventually pleaded guilty to lesser firearms-related charges, and the former CAIR staffer was sentenced to twenty years in prison.”
Then there is Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter. He was charged in July 2004 with giving Hamas more than 12 million dollars while he was running the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the charity that has earned CAIR the designation of unindicted co-conspirator.
Elashi was convicted in July 2004 of illegally shipping computers to two state-sponsors of terrorism, Libya and Syria. Then he was convicted in April 2005 of knowingly doing business with Mousa Abu Marzook, the senior Hamas leader who founded the IAP.
Elashi was convicted of conspiracy, money laundering, and dealing in the property of a designated terrorist.
Bassem Khafagi was CAIR’s community relations director. He pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa application and passing bad checks, and he was deported. Before he worked for CAIR, he was president of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA) — which is under investigation by the Justice Department for terrorism-related activities. According to court documents, the IANA was devoted to spreading “radical Islamic ideology, the purpose of which was indoctrination, recruitment of members, and the instigation of acts of violence and terrorism.”
Rabih Haddad was a CAIR fundraiser. He was arrested in December 2001 and deported. Again the charges were terror-related.
Maybe all these men were radical either before or after working for CAIR, but completely moderate while working for it. Maybe. But this is just part of the picture. A moderate group has several onetime employees arrested on terror charges. A moderate group came out of another group that has been identified as the “primary voice in the U.S.” of a terror group. A moderate group traffics in legal threats and intimidation against those of which it disapproves. A moderate group.
According to reporter Lisa Gardiner in the San Ramon Valley Herald, CAIR’s co-founder and former Board Chairman, Omar Ahmad, told a Muslim audience in 1998 that “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.” In 2003, when these words started to get publicity, Ahmad denied saying this. He denies he said it, and he denies that he believes this. However, the original reporter, Lisa Gardiner was contacted and she stands by her story.
Nonetheless, Ahmad has denied saying or believing this in no uncertain terms. He evidently disagrees, therefore, with Ibrahim Hooper, who said in 1993, before CAIR was founded: “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.” Radio host Michael Medved has told me that he has repeated this sentiment on his show more recently.
I don’t see that as moderate. It is simply Islamic supremacism by different means.