Flag, CAIR logo, and Hooper trying to look affable in a carefully staged image
Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper of Hamas-linked CAIR has sent out this crafty and deceptive op-ed as a “service” from Hamas-linked CAIR, and of course our lazy, clueless and compromised mainstream media is happy to oblige him by publishing it. This article seems to be a response to Pamela Geller’s recent exhaustive summary at Breitbart of Islamic jihad and supremacist activity in 2013. “Islamophobic ‘List’ Used to Justify Suspicion of Muslims,” by Ibrahim Hooper, January 14:
(WASHINGTON, DC) – One of the bigoted themes often promoted by the growing cottage industry of Muslim-bashers is that the increasing level of Islamophobia online and in the public arena is merely a legitimate response to the violent actions of Muslims worldwide.
Hooper here reveals the dishonesty at the heart of the entire “Islamophobia” initiative: Islamic supremacists and Leftists use the term to refer both to analyses of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism (e.g., what my colleagues and I do) and also to attacks on innocent Muslims (which neither I nor my colleague nor any decent person favors).
The objective is to make Americans think that any criticism of Islamic texts that jihadis use to incite violence worldwide threatens and endangers Muslims at home who don’t approve of that violence in the first place. Then by saying that “Muslim-bashers” claim that “Islamophobia” is a “legitimate response to the violent actions of Muslims worldwide,” Hooper is implying that those who decry violence and terror committed by Muslims in the name of Islam approve of violence against innocent, peaceful Muslims, as if to say, they had it coming.
Hooper cannily designs all this to obscure the real point: that people are suspicious of Islam because of jihad terror attacks — but not just because of them, but also because of the endless mau-mauing, intimidating, opposition to counter-terror efforts, claiming of victim status, faked hate crimes, smear campaigns against foes of jihad terror, and all the other things that make people suspicious of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslim organizations in the U.S.
No genuine attack on any innocent person, Muslim or otherwise, is ever justified. If Hamas-linked CAIR really wants to stop such attacks, it could do so by working sincerely to end the suspicions people have of Islam and Muslims — not with disingenuous “outreach” sessions designed to dispel “misconceptions” about Islam (i.e., spread more misconceptions about Islam, fool people into thinking it is a “Religion of Peace,” etc.), but by honestly working within Muslim communities and with law enforcement to root out jihadis and teach against the understanding of Islam that creates jihadis. Instead, Hamas-linked CAIR has opposed virtually every counter-terror measure that has ever been proposed, and one of its California chapters distributed a poster reading “Don’t talk to the FBI.”
You might wonder why Hamas-linked CAIR would do this if it wants to end “Islamophobia” (in the sense of suspicion of Islam) — surely Hooper, Awad and co. must know that those things increase such suspicion? Yes, I am sure they do — but in fact they want “Islamophobia” (both suspicion of Islam and attacks on peaceful Muslims) because they can use such attacks to claim victim status and the privileges that come with it, intimidate officials into thinking that surveillance of Islamic organizations is unjustified and endangers innocent people.
These Islamophobes scour the Internet to highlight every act of violence or political instability that can be tied to Islam and Muslims.
If a Muslim in a remote village in Pakistan violates Islamic beliefs by abusing his wife, we will hear about it and about why Islam should be blamed for his actions. Reports on every crime committed by a Muslim are assigned to the faith, whether or not there is even a remote religious connection.
Here again Hooper characterizes his opponents’ arguments in a reductionist way that unfairly trivializes them. The point is not that “Islam should be blamed” for someone abusing his wife, but that if the abuser used Islam to justify that abuse, then Muslim leaders who oppose such abuse should work honestly to make sure it doesn’t happen again by removing or reforming the things that are used to provide such justification. Are there any? Yes. The Qur’an says it: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.” (Qur’an 4:34)
Hooper would still say that the abuser “violates Islamic beliefs,” because Islamic apologists routinely claim that the Qur’an’s command to beat disobedient women must be applied only with the most harmless of implements — i.e., a toothstick, as per a weak hadith. However, Muhammad’s example is normative for Muslims, since he is an “excellent example of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21) — and according to a canonical hadith, Muhammad’s favorite wife, his child bride Aisha, reports that Muhammad struck her. Once he went out at night after he thought she was asleep, and she followed him surreptitiously. Muhammad saw her, and, as Aisha recounts: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?” (Sahih Muslim 2127) Aisha herself said it: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.” (Sahih Bukhari 7.72.715)
So is this blaming Islam for spousal abuse? A more constructive way to put it would be: this is pointing out how spousal abusers justify their actions by pointing to Islamic texts, and these texts need reforming and reinterpretation on a large scale.
This leads to a collective “mental list” of outrages committed by Muslims that is used to justify Islamophobia and suspicion of Muslims.
The list grows with each new crime or act of violence committed by a Muslim anywhere in the world.
For example, when Muhammad Ahmad Ali was recently stopped for speeding in Ohio and some 50 bombs and four guns were found in his vehicle, that was added to the list.
And when chemicals, fuses, guns, bomb-making materials, and how-to manuals with titles such as “Boobytraps,” “Deadly Brew,” and “Highly Explosive Pyrotechnic Compositions” were found recently in the Maryland home of Omar Ahmed Muhammad, that too was added to the list.
Never heard of these cases? Perhaps that is because they involved not the stereotypical pseudonyms used above, but instead involved individuals named Andrew Scott Boguslawski and Todd Dwight Wheeler Jr., who are apparently not Muslim.
We all know about and condemn the Boston Marathon bombings, but how about the bomb targeting the route of a Spokane, Wash., Martin Luther King Day march? That bomb was packed with fishing weights coated with an active ingredient in rat poison.
How about the plot to kidnap or kill Alaska state troopers and a Fairbanks judge? The plans included “extensive surveillance” on the homes of two Fairbanks troopers.
Never heard of these incidents in which no Muslims were involved? You are not alone.
Does anyone truly believe that anyone anywhere would remain unaware of these cases if it had been Muslims who were charged?
That is the problem with the “list,” it only grows if the perpetrator is an “Ali,” “Ahmed” or “Muhammad.” Violent acts or crimes committed by others are either ignored, attributed to the “deranged” nature of the perpetrator, or quickly forgotten.
This “list” phenomenon can be expanded to include political instability around the world.
The campaign to sever South Sudan from Sudan was portrayed as a struggle for liberation from oppressive “Muslim and Arab” rulers. We now see “liberated” South Sudanese killing each other based on having the wrong pattern of tribal scarring.
Thousands of Muslims rallying in support of democracy have been killed or injured by the forces of a military coup in Egypt, yet the world acquiesces to the slaughter.
Would the world have similarly failed to stop the slaughter of 130,000 Syrians or the persecution of Burmese Muslims if the governments committing the killings and abuses were “Islamist?”
The answer to that question is intuitive based on the selective information accumulated in the “list.”
Only when we view all acts of violence or instances of political instability through the same intellectual lens will we be able take the steps necessary to achieve what should be everyone’s goal — a more just and peaceful world in which people of all faiths and backgrounds are equally valued and respected.
This is all very clever, but the non-Muslim perpetrators didn’t point to any religious text as the inspiration and justification for their violence. Islamic jihadists routinely do. It is not just that they’re people named Ali and Muhammad who happen to commit acts of violence; they say they’re doing so because of Islam. A very small sampling:
“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30
“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.” — Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd
“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants
“Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” — Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud
“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam….By jihad, Islam is established….By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.” — Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad
“So step by step I became a religiously devout Muslim, Mujahid — meaning one who participates in jihad.” — Little Rock, Arkansas terrorist murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad
“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” — Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari
The ways in which such people use Islam to justify violence — that’s what Hooper should be addressing and working to end. Instead, he once again blames the “Islamophobes.”