Fitzgerald: What does CAIR think?

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?