LET 'EM EAT UPSIDE DOWN CAKE

“Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with Jews building houses in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran.”
—Burt Prelutsky

WE ARE TOLD NOT TO CAST ASPERSIONS. We are told not not to stereotype. We are told not to assign blame to all Muslims for the strife, hatred and violence their cousins in the Islamist branch of the family tree produce. Sounds fabulously fair, doesn't it? However we are also asked to collectively categorize ALL Tea party marchers as middle-aged, wealthy, white racists who hate having a black president and want poor black and brown people to suffer.

NYC Mayor Michael's Bloomberg's pathetic remarks immediately after the car bomb was discovered are pathetic enough, but seem mild compared to the snarky scolding he issued this morning after the Islamic identity of the bomber was revealed.

Where is all that anti-Muslim backlash our politicians and CAIR keep warning us against? Have some cake...

We are instructed that it is in our best interest as part of the human race to send our money to poorer nations, to stop living in large homes, to cut down on our "carbon" footprints and to accept the science we are shown. We are told this by people who buy huge homes and make tons of money and resolutely disregard dissent.

And this administration, we are told, has a "boot to the neck" of British Petroleum?

Here, have some more cake...

ISLAMIC VIOLATIONS OF TRUST, INC.

Dear Gabriel,

The article below reports that a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard was arrested on terrorist-related charges after being fingered by an informant. How the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (The Muslim Public Affairs Council, MPAC) and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) reacted is a perfect illustration of “properly understanding the times,” as discussed in our Monday and Tuesday emails this week.

Did the MPAC and CAIR denounce the alleged activities of the man who was arrested? Of course not. Following their predictably worn-out script, these two organizations attacked the FBI and law enforcement authorities for “violating the trust” of Muslims by working with an informant who infiltrated a mosque. Here’s one sentence from MPAC’s response:
“Federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques.”

Notice the insinuation, that the man arrested was “instigated” by a paid federal informant. The man arrested isn’t responsible—the “devil made him do it!” This is the same kind of response organizations like MPAC and CAIR make whenever a Muslim is arrested or suspected of terrorist-related activities. They attack law enforcement, or politicians, or groups and people they call “Islamophobic.” They play the “offended victim” card, complaining that the latest action violates “trust” between Muslims and law enforcement.

This is the same script Islamic militants and leaders have followed for years in Europe and Great Britain.

Here’s what violates trust—Islamic organizations and spokespeople who refuse to acknowledge that there a lot of people in their community of faith who want to hurt America, kill Americans, and impose shariah law on America.

Here’s what violates trust—Islamic organizations and spokespeople who claim perpetual victim status for Islamic radicals, and who claim that Americans are the aggressors, when in fact it is the radicals who are the aggressors and Americans are the victims.

We don’t see FBI informants and undercover criminal investigations inside churches and synagogues, and there’s an obvious reason why. If MPAC and CAIR are genuinely and sincerely concerned about “trust,” they would do well to stop attacking Americans and law enforcement and start denouncing the real violators of our trust—the radical Muslims in our midst who intend us harm.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. And that gives us an advantage—because we can predict with a high degree of accuracy what the Islamists will do next. Their “script” isn’t hard to read. We just have to expose them and refuse to play the role they’re trying to foist on us.

THE U.S. MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD is reacting to the arrest of a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard on charges of lying about his ties to terrorist groups on his citizenship and passport applications. An AP report describes the case as follows:

In the California case, information about the informant who spied on the Islamic Center of Irvine came out last week at a detention hearing for a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard, an Afghan native and naturalized U.S. citizen named Ahmadullah Niazi. Niazi, 34, was arrested Feb. 20 on charges of lying about his ties to terrorist groups on his citizenship and passport applications. He will be arraigned Monday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana. FBI Special Agent Thomas J. Ropel III testified at the hearing that an FBI informant infiltrated Niazi’s mosque and several others in Orange County and befriended Niazi.

Ropel said the informant recorded Niazi on multiple occasions talking about blowing up buildings, acquiring weapons and sending money to the Afghan mujahadeen. Niazi has not been charged with terrorism and it’s not yet clear if the FBI was focused on anything beyond his activities. Neither the mosque nor any other of its members have been charged. A 46-year-old fitness instructor told The Associated Press last week he was the informant.

Craig Monteilh of Irvine said Niazi talked about blowing up buildings and discussed sending Monteilh to a terrorist training camp in Yemen or Pakistan. Monteilh said his tenure as an informant ended after Niazi and other members of the Islamic Center of Irvine reported him to authorities. A Muslim advocacy group has demanded a federal investigation into whether Niazi was arrested because he refused to become an FBI informant after telling the agency about Monteilh.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has reacted by stating that the use of informants in mosques “stigmatizes” the mosques and erodes trust. According an article on the MPAC website:

Trust is the cornerstone of any partnership between law enforcement and communities. It can only be established and maintained through clear and open communication. Without this, trust is eroded and suspicions arise on all sides. This clearly does not serve anyone’s interests.Federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques. This mere act stigmatizes American mosques and casts a shadow of doubt and distrust between American Muslims and their neighbors.

It has also led many mosques and community groups to reconsider their relationship with the FBI, including most recently the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California. It is now up to the FBI and law enforcement agencies to re-engage with the Muslim American community, and re-build trust and respect. MPAC will continue to raise these community concerns with federal law enforcement officials in its efforts to help form policies that preserve civil liberties while also protecting our nation.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced that is planning to file a request for the U.S. Attorney General to launch an investigation into the FBI’s arrest:

On Tuesday, February 24, the Greater Los Angeles Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) will host a news conference to announce the filing of a request for the U.S. Attorney General to launch an investigation into the FBI’s arrest last week of Ahmad Niazi. The news conference will immediately follow a court hearing Tuesday for Niazi in Santa Ana, Calif. Members of his family will take part in the news conference. Mr. Niazi is charged with perjury, naturalization fraud, misuse of a passport obtained by fraud, and making a false statement to a federal agency. He claims the charges are in retaliation for his refusal to become an FBI informant. Mr. Niazi previously reported to CAIR-LA and other community members that, during a raid of a friend’s house, an FBI agent urged Mr. Niazi to work with the agency, saying that if he refused to cooperate his life would be made a “living hell.”

MPAC was established in the mid 1980’s by individuals whose backgrounds are likely rooted in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and since its inception has acted in concert with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. The organization, like other U.S. Brotherhood organizations, has a long history of fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and support for terrorism. The organization has long enjoyed generally good relations with the U.S. government and functions essentially as the political lobbying arm of the U.S. Brotherhood.

Documents released in the Holy Land Trial have revealed that the founders and current leaders of CAIR were part of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as identifying the organization itself as being part of the U.S. Brotherhood. Investigative research posted on GMBDR had determined that CAIR had it origins in the U.S. Hamas infrastructure and is an integral part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with a long history of support for fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and terrorism. Numerous earlier posts have reported on the relationship between the FBI and CAIR which appears to have been terminated by the FBI.

Both organizations have long histories of opposing almost all elements of U.S. counterterrorism strategy. CAIR in particular has defended numerous individuals accused and/or convicted of terrorism offenses and a number of CAIR employees have also been convicted of terrorism.

CAIR STRIKES IN PREDICTABLE FASHION

IN THE PAST SEVEN DAYS, evidence surfaced that the FBI was cutting off its primary contacts with CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), after CAIR refused to address FBI questions about CAIR's relationship to Hamas (a designated terrorist organization). Then, five members of Congress sent a letter to other members of Congress entitled "Beware of CAIR," citing the evidence that the FBI had severed ties with CAIR.

Click here to read the letter.

CAIR has responded in its predictable timeworn fashion—attack the messengers. The commentary below, fetched from the website of SANE (Society of Americans for National Existence), includes the response letter that CAIR sent to Congresswoman Sue Myrick, a Republican from Charlotte, North Carolina, and co-chair of the House Anti-Terrorism Caucus.

One line in CAIR's letter is particularly telling: "If enduring these baseless attacks from you is part of God's price for freedom, we embrace them."

Playing the victim, or in this case, the martyr, is a common tactic among Islamists. In CAIR's world, any critique or criticism of it, no matter how reasoned or documented, is anti-Muslim bigotry. For CAIR to claim that allegations against it are "baseless" is, well, baseless.

Why would the FBI finally make the decision it did to sever ties with CAIR if there was no basis for doing so? Why would the Justice Department list CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial if there was no basis for doing so? Why would an FBI agent, testifying under oath during that trial, label CAIR as a front organization for Islamist extremism if there was no basis for saying so?

The answer is they wouldn't.

The CAIR "scare letter" to Congresswoman Sue Myrick can be downloaded HERE.

When Representative Sue Myrick learned that the FBI had severed its connections with and ties to CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in Washington, D.C., she understood the significance of this event. On the one hand, the US Attorneys prosecuting the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (the largest Muslim charity in the US post-9/11), CAIR Texas officials and others for materially supporting terrorism in the Middle East had taken the unprecedented step to publicly identify CAIR, ISNA, and other such groups as unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF criminal trial. On the other hand, members of the FBI would use CAIR as a sounding board for the "Muslim community" notwithstanding the lack of any evidence that CAIR represents anyone much less a "Muslim community" known largely for its lack of community organization.

As a result, Rep. Myrick, who is deeply involved in counterterrorism issues in Congress, wrote a letter outlining this new awareness by the FBI to her congressional colleagues. In return, and almost precisely on cue, CAIR went on the offensive in an abject display of desperation.

In the midst of their explanation that they are just a "civil rights organization" defending the downtrodden and oppressed among Muslims in America, they launch into a personal attack on Rep. Myrick, and this organization, SANE. (That letter is available above in PDF format for download at the unique URL for this entry.)

What CAIR has done here they have done before and will continue to do in the future. SANE, David Yerushalmi, Rep. Myrick, Robert Spencer, Stephen Coughlin, Dr. Andy Bostom, Frank Gaffney, Brigitte Gabriel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Tawfiq Hamid, and many others, have taken on the difficult but critically important task to identify precisely the Enemy Common Threat Doctrine which animates the worldwide jihad against unbelievers and the West generally. This doctrine is of course Shariah or Islamic law. This doctrine commands the faithful to engage in the conversion, subjugation or murder of those who resist Shariah's call for submission to a worldwide hegemony called a caliphate.

CAIR's approach to public discourse on this subject, however, is to take writings out of context and to conceal the careful and thoughtful analysis of Shariah and to distort that body of work into a caricature of simple anti-Muslim bigotry.

We have responded to this ad hominem approach in broad strokes but for those interested, the more telling response to CAIR is to simply quote two of the most authoritative and "mainstream" Shariah authorities in the world. The first is the Dow Jones Shariah advisor Mufti Taqi Usmani, who has written a book on how a "good" Muslim ought to behave while living among the infidels in the West. In that book, published in 1999 in English and available on Amazon.com, Usmani wrote:

I am in receipt of your esteemed letter. Whatever you have written about Jehad can be summarized as this "If a non-Muslim state allows for preaching Islam in its country, Jehad against it does not remain lawful." If this is what you mean, my humble self does not agree with it. Obstruction in the way of preaching Islam does not mean only a legal obstacle, but greater power or domination of a non-Muslim state against Muslims is by itself a great obstacle in the propagation of Islam. There are no legal restrictions in most of the countries today on preaching Islam, but since their grandeur and authority is established in the world, it has led to developing a universal feeling which forms a greater obstacle than the greatest legal binding in the way of free propagation of Islam.

For this reason the most important purpose of Jehad is to break this grandeur so that the resulting psychological subordination should come to an end and the way of accepting the Truth become smooth. As long as this grandeur and domination persists the hearts of people will remain subdued and will not be fully inclined to accept the religion of Truth. Hence Jehad will continue. The Qur'an said in Sura Tauba:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Here, killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay Jizyah [subjugation tax on non-Muslims] after they are humbled or overpowered. If the purpose of killing was only to acquire permission and freedom of preaching Islam, it would have been said "until they allow for preaching Islam." But the obligation of Jizyah and along with it the mention of their subordination is a clear proof that the purpose is to smash their grandeur, so that the veils of their domination should be raised and people get a free chance to think over the blessings of Islam. Imam Razi has written the following commentary on this verse:

The purpose of "Jizyah" is not to let the unbelievers stay in their contumacy against Islam but sparing their lives to give them a chance for a time during which they may hopefully get convinced of the truth of Islam and embrace it. So when an unbeliever is given time wherein he would be observing the respect and honour of Islam, and hearing the arguments of its validity, and also observing the baselesness of disbelief, these things would convince him to turn towards Islam. This, in fact, is the real purpose of legalizing Jizyah.

According to CAIR and its national leadership, the most important and authoritative Shariah authority for them and their Muslim Brotherhood associates is Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Mr. Qaradawi is well known for his fatwa ordering the mujahideen of Afghanistan and Iraq to murder American combat soldiers and civilian contractors. He has also issued a fatwa authorizing the suicide-murder of any Jew in Israel—man, woman, or child. He is quoted from Al-Jazeera television. as follows:

Oh Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. Oh Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. Oh Allah, they have spread much tyranny and corruption in the land. Pour Your wrath upon them, oh our God. Lie in wait for them. Oh Allah, You annihilated the people Thamoud at the hand of a tyrant, You annihilated the people of 'Aad with a fierce, icy gale, and You destroyed the Pharaoh and his soldiers—oh Allah, take this oppressive, tyrannical band of people. Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.

If CAIR were interested in a real discussion of these matters, as they suggest in their letter to Rep. Myrick, they have lacked neither opportunities nor platforms. Instead, they engage in the rankest form of ad hominem attacks and issue statements denouncing "terrorism" and the murder of "innocents" and the need for "justice" in the world. But anyone who has spent any time studying this Shariah propaganda understands it for what it is. All of the Shariah authorities, including OBL (who is not himself a Shariah authority), issue the same pronouncements because, per Shariah, jihad is not "terror"; the "killing of infidels" is not the "murder of innocents"; and "justice" is only achieved, as Mufti Usmani and Sheikh Qaradawi tell us ever so clearly, when Shariah-Islam rules the world and CAIR and its minions can shed their western disguises and apply Shariah's rule of law without apology or ruse and dominate all others who continue to resist Shariah-Islam.

Full disclosure: CAIR focuses attention on David Yerushalmi because he is representing several African American Muslims who are suing CAIR in federal court for racketeering, fraud and other crimes. For more information, CLICK HERE for the FrontPage interview with Yerushalmi.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Morris Days, the “Resident Attorney” and “Manager for Civil Rights” at the now defunct CAIR MD/VA chapter in Herndon, Virginia, was in fact not an attorney and that he failed to provide legal services for clients who came to CAIR for assistance and who had paid for CAIR legal services.

Need to learn more about the ravages of Islam? D.S. Margoliouth and Joseph Schacht have recently been reprinted. Antoine Fattal's book on the legal status of non-Muslims under Islam never went out of print. K. S. Lal is easily obtained. Tritton, Arthur Jeffery, Armand Abel, Georges Henri Bousquet, Snouck Hurgronje—they are all about to be reprinted, at least in relevant part. Of course, I don't think for a minute that Esposito, or any of his crew, are familiar with any of these great scholars, and dozens more. I doubt they've even read them. They seem actually to believe that the only person to have written about dhimmitude is Bat Ye'or, whom they like to airily dismiss as "polemical" so that they will not have to confront her meticulous, scrupulous, and irrefutable scholarship.

Let's be clear. The basis of the Islamic attitude towards unbelievers is the law of war; unbelievers must either be converted, or subjugated, or killed. And CAIR is just one front on that war, the two-faced public front. We are encouraged the veil has been ripped back on this treasonous group.

THE GREAT WALL OF SILENCE

An important series of questions were posited by a concerned US citizen to her elected representatives. The response to her questions were woefully inadequate. One day very soon we will know who among us—standing along the hallowed halls of liberty and freedom, conscience and the rule of law—were on the payroll to look the other way, and who indeed were the best and the brightest and most dedicated patriots of our time. Only then will the appeasers and the slouchers within our leadership ranks and from among the chattering café crowds know the depths of their shameless ignorance concerning the threat that unambiguously approaches.

If you want peace, prepare for war. “Si vis pacem, para bellum” from Flavius Vegetius Renatus circa 375 AD: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Said another way, when you want something badly enough, you must fight for it. As colonial patriot Patrick Henry once exclaimed, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Our current enemies believe the same. But their version of liberty is not mine.

Watch what people do and you will see their true level of commitment.

Ayn Rand spoke about this kind of bulletproof resolution. “There are two sides to every issue” she said, “one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth.”

Fence sitters and cowards exist in a moral fog where they never really commit to anything but their hatred of success. Achievers are prepared to fight to the death. Sidney Sheldon put it best: “The foolish think the Eagle weak, and easy to bring to heel. The Eagle's wings are silken, but its claws are made of steel.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face in marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Winners don’t cut and run. They are in the fight until the end. They stay the course. They know that anything worthwhile will take a bit longer and take some doing. They understand that they will face a few detours, disappointments, and distractions.

"When you push a winner, you find out whom you’re really dealing with." They expect the unexpected. They are warriors who realize that war is war. They don’t make excuses or expect the state or mommy to help them. They don’t find the strongest people to blame for their inadequacies, spinelessness and weakness. They bounce back courageously and fight on. They are the “Steel fist in the silken glove”—when you push them, you find out whom you’re really dealing with.

IT’S THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS clause in our Constitution that will do us in. Every letter I have ever written to a politician, some of them lengthy and with references, evoked terse replies admonishing me for my intolerance and reminding me that ALL religions are respected and welcomed in America. In my follow-up responses to these idiotic replies, none of which were acknowledged, I asked these so-called representatives how they could condone the practice of a religion by millions of immigrants( who continue to flood America despite hating it) that brazenly teaches its followers to usurp our government and convert, enslave, or kill all non-Muslim Americans.

I painstakingly outlined the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood and listed every orgainization connected to it that operates in America. I demanded to know why these insurgents and fifth columnists were permitted to operate in our country with impunity when they are dedicated to its destruction. No answer. I demanded to know why Muslim supremacists could carry signs predicting the overthrow of our government while they burned U.S. flags on our streets. No answer. I demanded to know why public funds were allocated to seditionist Islamic organizations like the Muslim Student Association and CAIR, our avowed enemies that intend to cut our throats, seize our property and assets, usurp our government, and implement Islamic law in America.

I demanded to know how my government intended to protect me and my family from the radical jihadists inculcated in American mosques by Saudi Wahabbi clerics. I demanded to know why these America-haters were allowed to come here and spread their vile, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Jew hatred and to explain to me where religious freedom ended and sedition began. I pointed out the explosive, festering situation in Europe with its Muslim supremacists and asked if that was our future. I asked if anyone in Washington had ever studied Islamic history and the doctrine of Islam or if they all relied on the Islamic apologist liars in academia and intelligentsia to provide them with soothing canards so they could ignore the problem of Islam and Muslims.

I listed the terror attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam since 9/11 and asked if they really believed that jihad was a marginal problem among a few fanatics. I asked why America stopped limiting immigrants to those who genuinely wanted to become Americans and would contribute to our society and respect our way of life and why we now deliberately and suicidally invite our enemies to invade our country. I concluded by asking them if they were blind and deaf or if maybe they too had been bought by the Saudis.

My representatives are Republicans, except for one. This was a frustrating, infuriating experience that I will never forget and never understand beyond the fact that politicians are shackled by political correctness and fear reprisals from their colleagues and/or the wrath of their constituents if they dare voice valid concerns about Islam. The only thing that will change their attitudes is a flood of complaints and letters of outrage from the people they represent. Someone made the comment in another thread that 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to Islam and Muslims in America.

Instead of opening the eyes of all Americans to this pernicious scourge, they have been lulled into a false sense of security by lying politicians, politically correct multiculturalists, moral relativists, and well-meaning but ignorant Christian and Jewish clerics. Instead of being isolated and treated with justified suspicion, Muslims have been elevated to victim status and they are the consummate exploiters of genuine good will, a virtue they will never possess or comprehend.

—Susan P.

TREASON AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Here's a strong argument against the tactics used by those who tout with positive spin the adage that WAR IS DECEIT simply because their warlord prophet told them so, published on Jihad Watch by a fellow writing under the oddly familiar non de guerre Hyman Roth:

CAIR and other enemies undoubtedly would like to take some of the comments on this particular thread to falsely proclaim that Jihad Watch endorses random mayhem against all Muslims. Robert S has mentioned that he is frequently on the defensive against this claim but addresses it this way:

To paraphrase, Jihad Watch does not endorse the viewpoint expressed by each comment, but allows a wide range of viewpoints to be expressed. However, comments which explicitly advocate such things as genocide against any group, including Muslims, are considered beyond the pale and, subsequently, deleted by moderators as they are observed. Therefore, claiming that Jihad Watch endorses or supports such things as genocide or other lawlessness directed against any particular group is false.

That is a defensive position, but I would like to suggest to Robert to supplement the position so as to push forward a solution. Namely, when accused of promoting "hate" or "genocide" or whatever, after first referring to the standard disclaimer above, turn it around as follows:

"What my esteemed and honorable opponents may be referring to as being hateful rhetoric emanating from Jihad Watch is actually constructive and rational discourse regarding enforcement of the law. Treason is a capital offense. When anybody commits treason, Muslim or otherwise, they should be punished accordingly. This is compatible with rule of law and, in fact, rule of law cannot survive as an institution otherwise."

I have a personal example of why I believe that this position may help to improve the debate as well as open people's ears. When I was a good "progressive" college student in the late 80's in History 101 or something, the subject of the Kent State shootings came up. I told the professor and the class about fascism, Nixon, republicans, etc., like a good little hippie wannabee. Anyway, the professor remained calm and explained the situation the following way:

First, the Kent State shootings were not a result of a top down order to kill dissidents but a result of itchy trigger finger and loss of control on the part of police and provocation by students. Second, the leaders of the student movement were advocating violent revolution--whether or not they could conceivably pull it off is another matter. In just about every case of recorded history, anybody who advocates violent revolution, regardless of their likelihood of success, has been considered a fair target by the existing authorities. By all historical and even contemporary standards, Kent State protesters and much of the rest of the radical movement of the 60's got off lightly. A "good" regime cannot survive if it allows people to openly plan and implement its demise. So even if, hypothetically, in the unlikeliest possible instance that America was led by a "good" regime (irony), that regime would be within its rights and even duty-bound, to punish and perhaps even to kill people who were acting to destroy it.

That patient explanation from a History professor whose name I've forgotten provided a little dent in the PC armor which had at one time engulfed my feeble little mind.

Now that my feeble little mind is no longer engulfed within PC, I can proclaim that anybody who wants to destroy my country should be killed. If they aren't killed, then they get off lightly. And the process by which they should be brought to justice needs to be done via rule of law. I say this with no hatred in my heart—with no desire to break the law—but only with a desire to urge our authorities in the most strenuous possible fashion that it is their duty to enforce this mandate in the most efficient, fair, and humane way possible.

Robert, Hugh, and so on, please consider supplementing the "standard disclaimer" above with something so that it can be turned back against CAIR. Since CAIR is unspecific about which comments they consider hateful or genocidal, use that lack of specificity to define what they "actually" mean. What they actually must find offense from is rational discourse regarding the consequences of engaging in open war, treason, and sedition, against established, traditional, and legitimate authority. CAIR is a front group for people making war against the United States and our allies and, as such, wants to minimize the just consequences of this behavior, which include banishment, imprisonment, or death, depending on the particular circumstances.

PARSING THE INFIDELITY OF LANGUAGE

Let's review. Get back to basics. Let's start with an observation of Mark Twain, and dig into the “lies, damn lies, and statistics bureau” by way of the archives of Daniel Pipes...

Three so-called fatwas (even a novice in Islam knows they do not fulfill the definition of a fatwa, which has to be written by a Islamic jurisprudent in response to a specific query) came out in July condemning the 7/7 attacks in London.

British Muslim Forum: "Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives." (July 18, 2005)

120 Canadian imams: "Any one who claims to be a Muslim and participates in any way in the taking of innocent life is betraying the very spirit and letter of Islam." (July 21, 2005)

Fiqh Council of North America: "Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives." (July 28, 2005)

Non-Muslims can be forgiven if they assume the reference to "innocent lives" includes those traveling on the Underground and bus lines in London earlier in the month. But the term "innocent lives" can be much more restricted in application, as a fascinating article in today's Sunday Times (London) makes clear.

Titled "Undercover in the academy of hatred," it is based on the covert research by Ali Hussain of the newspaper's Insight team. Ali joined the Saviour Sect in June, a few weeks before the 7/7 bombings and took along his tape recorder. What he heard is hair-raising—it is imperative for Muslims to "instil terror into the hearts of the kuffar," "I am a terrorist. As a Muslim, of course I am a terrorist," "They will build tall buildings and we will bring them down," the bombings were "a good start" and Allah should "bless those involved"

He also heard two speakers discuss whom they consider to be innocent.

Zachariah, referring to the London passengers: "They're kuffar [infidels, kafirs]. They're not people who are innocent. The people who are innocent are the people who are with us or those who are living under the Islamic state."

Omar Bakri Mohammed, the sect's leader, who on July 20 publicly condemned the deaths of "innocents," but at the Selby Centre in Wood Green, north London, on July 22 referred to the 7/7 bombers as the "fantastic four" and explained that his grief for the "innocent" applied only to Muslims. "Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar."

Comments:
(1) Muslim statements condemning the killing of "innocents" cannot be taken at face value but must be probed to find out who exactly are considered innocent and who not. In brief, Can infidels be innocents?

(2) For other assessments of the U.S. "fatwa," see the critiques of Abul Kasem, Yehudit Barsky, Steven Emerson, Christopher Orlet Steven Stalinsky, and the United American Committee, as well as the interesting quotations in an Associated Press report. See the fine analysis of the Canadian statement by David Ouellette.

(3) These documents fit a pattern of dissembling by Islamist organizations; for another example, see "CAIR's Phony Petition."
(August 7, 2005)

Aug. 10, 2005 update: Anjum Chaudri, a follower of Omar Bakri Mohammed and UK leader of the radical al Muhajiroun, appeared on the BBC program HARDtalk where the following exchange took place (at 4:20 minutes) with the host, Stephen Sackur:

Sackur: I just wonder why you won't condemn it when your own leader, Omar Bakri, said quite simply, "I condemn the killing of innocent people," on the 20th of July. Why won't you say what he said?

Chaudri: No, at the end of the day innocent people—when we say innocent people we mean Muslims. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam, and as far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God.

Sackur: I want to be clear about what you are saying—this is very important—you are saying that only Muslims can count as innocent people?

Chaudri: As far as far as Muslims are concerned , you are innocent if you are a Muslim—then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are a non-Muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God.

Comment: "When we say innocent people we mean Muslims" – one cannot put it more clearly or starkly than that.

Aug. 30, 2005 update: In a bellicose interview in Lebanon (where he may feel he has nothing to lose in being more candid), Omar Bakri Mohammed publicly came close to confirming the above sentiments. He was questioned by Sanaa al Jack of Ash-Sharq al-Awsat:

(Q) you said that you are against killing innocent people and have nothing to do with the Al-Qaeda Organization. Now you are calling for jihad. How do you explain your position?
(A) I have often repeated that I am against the killing of innocent people anywhere in the world but who are the innocent? I keep the answer to myself.

Q) Who do you define as innocent?
(A) The innocent people are specified by Islam. I denounce killing innocent people regardless of who kills them. However, who are the innocent? I do not have to explain this issue.

(Q) Does this mean that you support killing those whom you consider guilty and those whom Islam as you understand it describes as not innocent?
(A) I support what the Sunni Muslim youths in Lebanon believe in.

(Q) What about killing in general?
(A) Sister, I do not say that I support killing in general. You said that.

(Q) But you alluded to a classification of innocent people. Does this mean that you support jihad in certain areas because of things that are being done against Islam?
(A) Do you think that the Palestinian resistance is not right?

(Q) I am not giving an opinion, I am asking about your point of view.
(A) I am against killing innocent people and I repeat this everywhere. This is my personal position.

Sep. 15, 2005 update: A Pakistani veteran of the jihad, Khalid Khawaja, explains his understanding of "innocents" this way to Steward Bell (as quoted in Bell's new book, The Martyr's Oath, p. 81): "We don't believe in killing innocent people but we would certainly like to send you into the Stone Age the same way you have sent us into the Stone Age."

May 19, 2006 update: MEMRI reveals today that Salah Sultan, a signatory of the above Fiqh Council of North America fatwa and a mainstay of the Islamist establishment in the United States, spoke two days ago on Al-Risala TV channel, where he blamed 9/11 on the U.S. government ("The entire thing was of a large scale and was planned within the U.S., in order to enable the U.S. to control and terrorize the entire world"). He also praised Abd Al-Majid Al-Zindani ("he is known worldwide for his refinement, virtue, and broad horizons"), although the U.S. government has categorized Al-Zindani as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" because of his loyalty to Osama bin Laden and his support of Al-Qaeda.

And thanks to Robert Spencer:

Let's fire off a brief note to those CAIR types, explaining that the coinage of the term "Islamophobia" is an exercise in blaming the victim, and that if Muslims want to end "Islamophobia" 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.
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! "Islamophobia" will vanish. No UN program, and no action by European governments will be needed.

CAIR, BEARS OR HONEY?

CAIR Thugs on Islamophobia Patrol: Coming Soon to Your Neighborhood?

By Patrick Poole

FSM Contributing Editor Patrick Poole characterizes CAIR's harassment of a private citizen in his home, which CAIR describes as an "invitation to dialogue," as nothing more than a masquerade for their alarming scare tactics. Jackboot thuggery or inter-faith engagement? You decide.

Three officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Ohio admit to going unannounced to a man's home to confront him over a bumper sticker on his car—a testament, they claim, of their tolerance and moderation. The incident occurred last year, but the CAIR trio involved—Ahmad Al-Akhras, CAIR national vice chairman, Asma Mobin-Uddin, CAIR-Ohio president, and Abukar Arman, CAIR-OH board member—have recently recounted this incident to the local establishment media as an example of how they "invite dialogue."

Others, however, believe the incident is additional proof that CAIR regularly resorts to threats, intimidation and demonization to silence its critics. Earlier this month, attorneys for CAIR sent a letter threatening legal action against the Young Americans Foundation if they allowed NY Times bestselling author and JihadWatch director, Robert Spencer, to speak at their conference on "The Truth of the Council on American-Islamic Relations." This thuggery is reminiscent of CAIR's 2004 lawsuit against independent journalist Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR, a suit which was dropped by CAIR in order to avoid responding to required interrogatories about its historic ties to HAMAS and role in terror financing.

The CAIR-OH incident is without known precedent, harassing a private citizen at his home because CAIR officials did not like one of his bumper stickers. One of the trio, Abukar Arman, has described how they set upon their unwitting victim:

Several months ago, a non-Muslim fellow in the inter-faith community brought to the attention of CAIR-Ohio a picture of his neighbor's truck with a bumper sticker that read "Jesus loves you, and Allah wants you dead."

Some of us thought that the appropriate thing to do was to get media involved and use this truck owner as a poster-child of the prevalent assertive ignorance that is widening the post 9/11 political divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. Others, on the other hand, saw this as an opportunity for human contact, discourse, and to build bridges of understanding.

The latter opinion prevailed.

Therefore, I had the privilege of being one of three Muslims (2 male and a female with Islamic veil) who paid a neighborly visit to the truck owner. What ensued was an interesting discourse that I found to be very educational (its final outcome notwithstanding). The truck owner was a former Marine officer who served in Somalia and Iraq. Initially, as he opened the door, he was visibly apprehensive (and rightfully so).

We greeted him and introduced ourselves. We reassured him that we were only interested to get to know him, address any questions or perhaps grievance that he may have, and to give him a chance to meet and dialogue with ordinary Muslims.

Long story short: in a conversation that took place right outside his door and lasted for over an hour, the former Marine talked about how he was very suspicious of Muslims and how, both in Somalia and in Iraq, he and other Americans who "came to help these two countries had their hands bitten..." He talked about how he did not believe there were any moderate Muslims and how organizations such as CAIR were deliberately silent about condemning terrorism. He also talked about being alarmed by the growing Muslim population in Central Ohio and how they may be hiding a terrorist who has in his possession a "briefcase nuke." He said, "I don't want to see a giant mushroom in Columbus" [I will come back to this point].

Lastly, he talked about his career in the private sector...how he worked as a "corporate anti-terrorism expert" and a "consultant to a numerous multinational corporations..."

Arman admits that the original intention was to make this two-war veteran a "poster-child" of Islamophobia and publicly to vilify the man by enlisting the help of the local media—all because they didn't agree with the sentiments the man expressed via a bumper sticker. He also admits that the man was visibly leery of his late-night visitors showing up on his doorstep, what they probably would argue is proof of his Islamophobia.

What makes this situation and Abukar Arman's comments even more appalling is that the former Marine had served in the UN-backed peacekeeping mission in Somalia, Arman's native country, to protect the people there from the warlords that had taken over the country and who were starving the people by the tens of thousands. Additionally, the former Marine had been reported to CAIR by one of his neighbors who was a friend to the CAIR officials in the "inter-faith community."

But imagine if the roles in this case were reversed: imagine if Robert Spencer, Andrew Whitehead and myself showed up on the doorstep of any of these CAIR officials—unwelcome and unannounced—to confront them about their repeated statements of support for extremism, bigotry and terrorism: Ahmad Al-Akhras for his public defense of convicted terrorists, including his "long-time friend," convicted and deported Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Fawaz Damra; Asma Mobin-Uddin for promoting several hate sites with rabidly anti-Jewish content on her own personal website; or Abukar Arman, for his vocal public support of HAMAS, Hezbollah and the al-Qaeda-backed Islamic Courts Union. Would they see such action as "inviting dialogue," or would they instead denounce such an "invitation to dialogue" in a flurry of CAIR press releases as a "hate crime" that would merit restraining orders and warrant federal criminal charges?

With their opponents on the working end of this tactic of cultural terrorism, however, they enthusiastically recount this act of intimidation, attempting to paint their "neighborly visit" as a peaceful effort to "engage" non-Muslims. The establishment media has been quick to pick up this twisted narrative. Earlier this month, in a front page Columbus Dispatch article on Mr. Arman, Mobin-Uddin cites this incident of confronting a man at his home as evidence of Mr. Arman's "kindness":

"Mr. Arman is a man of the greatest integrity, kindness and responsibility," Mobin-Uddin said. She recalled a visit with Arman a few years ago to the home of an ex-Marine who displayed an anti-Muslim bumper sticker.

"We stood and talked with the man on his doorstep for an hour and a half. Mr. Arman never raised his voice. He told the man, 'You know, sir, I have four children. I've lived in this country for decades. If I knew someone who was going to put a bomb somewhere, I would be the first one to jump on them.' "

This isn't the first time, however, that the Columbus Dispatch has pulled out this story as an example of the tolerance and moderation of the CAIR trio and their cohorts.

In an Orwellian-titled article this past April, "Changing Hearts, Minds," Ahmad Al-Akhras gave his analysis of his and his comrades' late-night "invitation to dialogue" to an attentive Dispatch reporter: Changing minds isn't always as pleasant as sharing some snacks and laughs.

Last year, Ahmad Al-Akhras and two other community leaders knocked on the door of a man whose car bore a bumper sticker that read: "Jesus loves you. Allah wants you dead."

Al-Akhras is president of the Islamic Foundation of Central Ohio and is the vice chairman of the national Council on American-Islamic Relations. They spoke to the ex-Marine for more than an hour at his doorstep, telling him they had 11 children between them and cared strongly about America's safety, Al-Akhras said.

"More than 95 percent of the time, we agree on things," Al-Akhras said of Muslims and non-Muslims. But he added that he isn't sure that the visit did any good.

It should be evident that going to a man's home, particularly someone entirely unknown to you, to confront them about the content of their bumper stickers is not an invitation to dialogue, but jackboot thuggery reminiscent of the Nazi SA Storm troopers. One of them admits that rather than painting a symbol on the man's house or business to show their disapproval for his religious statements (much as the SA would mark Jewish homes or businesses with a Star of David and the word "Juden"), they considered calling in the media to condemn this two-war Marine veteran and expose him to public scorn all because they didn't like his bumper sticker.

CAIR has repeatedly demonstrated that their methodology and discourse must rely on increasingly shrill rhetoric to get public attention and publicly attacking anyone who questions their troubling ideology. Nor has CAIR ever hesitated to inflame a situation to further its own agenda to the detriment of the rest of the community, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. As their own supposed constituency continues to abandon CAIR, such now that their membership is less than two thousand nationwide, CAIR will need to resort to more confrontational and escalating tactics to keep the establishment media's attention in order to disseminate their message of hate, alienation and conflict.

CAIR's Islamophobia patrols: coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

CAIR BULLIES ARE THWARTED

Well, it looks like the tide is turning, and CAIR may be on the first wave back out to the sea from which it came. This is good news for America. This is good news for truly peaceful Muslims. This is good news for you, those enemies in waiting on the Left, who act as apologists for these interlopers, these invaders who are using our system to gain footing, only to have already voiced their agenda to replace the US Constitution with sharia law. How many times do they have to tell us these things. Yes, this is good news for you doubters and appeaser. You just don't know it yet.

Read it all. Check out the three links. Check out the parties in play. Do your homework people. Before it's too late.


PHILADELPHIA - The Legal Project of the Middle East Forum announces its support of Robert Spencer and the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the latest victims of what appears to be a targeted intimidation and defamation campaign by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) designed to silence critics of its organization.

Spencer, a well-respected author and the director of Jihad Watch, spoke today for YAF on "The Truth about CAIR" on the campus of George Washington University. As a consequence of this invitation, YAF's president Ron Robinson received a threatening and possibly defamatory letter written by CAIR's acting attorney, Joseph E. Sandler, of the law firm Sandler, Reiff & Young, P.C.

Sandler's letter (available in pdf format here) accuses Mr. Spencer, without offering any factual support, of being a "well-known purveyor of hatred and bigotry against Muslims," with "a history of false and defamatory statements." Sandler goes on to "demand that YAF cancel the subject session or else take steps to ensure that false and defamatory statements are not disseminated," and states an intention to pursue a "legal remedy" against YAF, should CAIR deem statements made by Spencer at the session "false and defamatory."

CAIR's letter appears to be aimed at maliciously harming Spencer's reputation, interfering in his lawful employment, and aimed to discourage both Spencer and YAF from exercising their fundamental rights to free speech and assembly. Furthermore, the letter wrongfully implies that YAF has an independent duty to censor Spencer, and that it may be subject to suit for allowing Spencer to speak on private property. It is our opinion that CAIR's pre-emptive accusations are without merit, without any legal basis, and that CAIR has yet to prove any of its statements as true.

Therefore, the Legal Project hereby gives CAIR and its attorneys notice that it, too, will pursue "every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false or defamatory statements that are made" or have been made by CAIR and its attorneys against Spencer. We advise CAIR's staff to govern themselves accordingly.

The Legal Project, established by the Middle East Forum in June 2007, is dedicated to safeguarding the democratic liberties afforded by the Constitution to U.S. citizens, namely the rights to free speech and free assembly. The Legal Project protects researchers and analysts working on the topics of terrorism, terrorist funding, Islam, and Islamism against those who seek to silence them through intimidation, defamation, and predatory lawsuits.

Immediate release

For more information: John Matthies, (215) 546-5406, ext. 16, or Matthies@MEForum.org