Doc's Talk: CAIR's Irresponsible Dismissal of the "South Park" Threat

Thursday, April 29, 2010

CAIR's Irresponsible Dismissal of the "South Park" Threat

IPT News
April 28, 2010
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1922/cairs-irresponsible-dismissal-of-the-south-park

In the wake of controversy surrounding a death threat against the creators of the animated comedy "South Park" for depicting the prophet Muhammad dressed as a bear, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has made clear that its renewed effort to combat extremism is limited to countering its pick of "credible" extremists. According to CAIR, RevolutionMuslim.com, the website on which the threat against South Park's co-creators was posted, and Zachary Chesser, a Muslim convert now known as Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, the individual who posted the threat, don't make the cut for dangerous influences.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper wrote off the RevolutionMuslim.com site as "an extreme fringe group that has absolutely no credibility within the Muslim community." "In fact, most Muslims suspect they were set up only to make Muslims look bad," Hooper added. "We just have very deep suspicions. They say such outrageous, irresponsible things that it almost seems like they're doing it to smear Islam."

Hooper is setting up a false choice. If RevolutionMuslim.com is a fringe group – and it most certainly is – then CAIR must be mainstream. That's not the case. CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood-tied advocacy group that is implicated in a terror-financing scheme and has a demonstrated history of supporting and defending radical Islamists. It lacks the standing to judge who does and does not speak for American Muslims, though it claims the role for itself.

As writer Mark Tapson notes, CAIR's response falls far short of wholeheartedly defending free speech. The normally media savvy CAIR "is throwing away a golden opportunity to explain exactly how these 'crazies' have 'hijacked' the religion. This would be the perfect time to discredit their 'outrageous, irresponsible' distortions, wouldn't it? And to stand with the South Park creators in defense of free speech?"

Monday, CAIR-Chicago Executive Director Ahmed Rehab offered up a similar dismissal of the site's extremism, calling the group fraudulent. "The 'Muslims' in this case are a group of literally 5-10 people who are widely reviled by the mainstream community for their radical and confrontational style," Rehab wrote in an article for the Chicago Tribune. "Whether, true Muslim or agent provocateurs, the result is the same: they are five community outcasts."

Former Dutch Parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali challenged this "outcast" argument in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday asking, "How much harm can an Islamist fringe group do in a free society?" Plenty, as she knows first hand. Hirsi Ali wrote the screenplay for the film "Submission" with Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 for the film's critical nature of women's role in Islam.

In his online posting, Al-Amrikee threatened that South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone would "probably end up like" Van Gogh. Ali reminds us that Van Gogh was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim previously thought to have been a minor actor in radical circles. Ali uses this example to argue that fringe groups have the potential to do "a lot" of harm.

CAIR's attempt to minimize this radicalism becomes even harder to justify when also considering extremist materials posted to RevolutionMuslim.com and disturbing postings by Al-Amrikee. In March, Hooper recognized that:

"Young people are targeted by extremists on the Internet. They need access to mainstream views. The best way is at the chapter level. This is one of our top priorities nationwide."

RevolutionMuslim.com offers anything but what Hooper deems "mainstream" views for readers. For example, the web page direct readers to a YouTube video praising Osama bin Laden. In the video a Muslim leader says of bin Laden, "By Allah I bear witness that I could not find an equal to him in the whole of the Islamic world. So we ask to protect his religion and his wealth and to bless him in this life."

The site also links to a 2009 address by Osama bin Laden to the American people, a piece by Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri, a release from Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and writings by Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb. Arabic documents are translated into English for easy accessibility by readers.

In March 2010, Al-Amrikee even criticized a CAIR press release which welcomed the alleged arrest of Al-Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn. Al-Amrikee wrote:

"To CAIR: Why don't you spend more time congratulating Muslims when they do something good? Also, why don't you guys ever condemn the United States when they blow up entire Muslim villages? Are those thirteen people whom Muj. Hassan sent to Hellfire better than the hundreds who are murdered weekly in Afghanistan? Go learn your religion."

Reader comments on Al-Amrikee's blog, themujahidblog.com, indicate that several individuals have gained an interest in becoming a mujahideen after reading his postings. Below his posting "How to Help the Mujahideen" one reader, zainab, comments "I wnt to becom muhajid?how can u help me?" Another comment by ismallianto reads, "I also want to be mujahideen…pls email me if u can help me" even providing an email address. Al-Amrikee cites the Qur'an throughout this article in which he states, "We have to actually go and fight against the disbelievers."

In December of 2009 CAIR announced its plan to launch a website as an online resource center for Muslims who are vulnerable to extremist ideologies. Executive Director Nihad Awad said the idea is to refute the misuse of verses from the Qur'an and hadiths "that are commonly misused by recruiters or young people who do not understand the depths and circumstances of revelations and just juxtapose superficial and disconnected meaning to justify their actions." Al-Amrikee is doing exactly what Awad vowed to combat, but CAIR isn't taking on the content of his message.

In another Al-Amrikee blog posting entitled "Open Source Jihad" (OSJ) he encourages individuals to perform jihad even if it is not organized. He writes, "Today the support for jihad is so great, al-hamdulillah, that someone who simply wants to please Allah, but has done little studying can be easily motivated to go and fight." He adds, "OSJ has even become a method used by the likes of Al-Qa'ida on a structural level. All of the various Al-Qa'idas out there are largely independent." He even supports Anwar al-Awlaki, calling him the "first westerner to pioneer the concept of open source jihad."

Considering the website's postings and CAIR's stated goals of countering such material, the organization's dismissal of the ability of Al-Amrikee and RevolutionMuslim.com to radicalize vulnerable individuals is disturbing.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk