Doc's Talk: CAIR’s Campaign Against the Truth

Monday, November 21, 2011

CAIR’s Campaign Against the Truth

Joseph Klein

The Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) is continuing its relentless pressure on federal and local elected officials to suppress the truth about the radical Islamist agenda and the dangers posed by homegrown jihadists. The latest example is CAIR’s campaign, announced on November 15th, 2011, in which fifteen of its chapters nationwide have filed 87 separate public records requests regarding alleged “Islamophobic” training of local, state and national law enforcement personnel. CAIR said it was seeking information about state-level programs that may have used federal taxpayer dollars to fund what it called “anti-Muslim trainers.”

CAIR as usual is turning the truth on its head. It accuses its opponents of the very hate speech that is CAIR’s own normal lingo.

CAIR’s Los Angeles California branch issued a press release regarding the alleged Islamophobic training that it is seeking to de-fund. The Communications Manager of CAIR’s Los Angeles, California branch is Munira Syeda, whose name appears on the press release. She evidently believes in freedom of speech for her organization’s point of view, but not for contrary points of view.

For example, Syeda defended the actions of a group apparently belonging to the radical Muslim Student Union, who were found guilty of disrupting a speech given by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. Ambassador Oren was speaking about U.S.-Israel relations in February 2010 at the University of California, Irvine when the instigators stood up in succession, shouting epithets such as “killers” and asking, “How many Palestinians did you kill?” They persisted in their loud heckling, despite calls to behave from campus officials. This was not about exercising the right of free speech. The Muslim students would have had an opportunity to ask pointed questions or make their statements during the Q&A session that was scheduled to follow the speech. It was about disruptive conduct aimed at censoring others’ right to freely speak, listen and exchange ideas, in violation of California law.

The CAIR Communications Manager supported this “heckler’s veto” when used to shout down attempts by representatives and supporters of Israel to communicate. But she has no problem trying to quash peaceful, non-disruptive protests against Islamist events where violent jihadist sympathizers are speaking.

For instance, Syeda condemned a rally protesting an Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) fundraiser held at the Yorba Linda City Council Community Center in Orange County, California last February. One of the speakers at the ICNA fundraiser was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, Siraj Wahhaj, who was once quoted as saying to an audience of Muslims in New Jersey, “[T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.” He has also reportedly talked in the past about violent jihad, complete with references to arming black ex-cons in the inner cities with Uzis. Another speaker, Malik Ali, had been captured at one point on video inciting Muslim university students with these words: “They [Jews] know this is a new day. … What do we do? Might be another 9/11.”

There was good reason for some members of the Orange County community to be upset by the prospect of such hatemongers speaking in their city council community center. But they did nothing to interfere with the speeches. According to The Orange County Register, many in the crowd of protesters waved U.S. flags and carried signs saying, “God Bless America” and “No Sharia Law.” A small number of protesters stood about fifty yards from the community center entrance. They booed, yelled “go home” and chanted “no Sharia law” as attendees entered the building. Among their signs were ones that said “ICNA supports Hamas and Hezbollah.” Nobody was reported to have actually entered the community center and disrupt any of the speeches, as the Muslim students had done during Israeli Ambassador Oren’s speech.

One of the most vociferous of the protesters was Councilwoman and Republican Party Vice Chair Deborah Pauly, who was particularly upset with the two violent jihadist sympathizers on the ICNA guest speaker list. She told protesters rallying outside of the Islamic Circle of North America fundraiser: “Let me tell you what’s going on over there right now – make no bones about it – that is pure, unadulterated evil. … I know quite a few Marines who would be very happy to help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise.”

Strong, even offensive, words – yes. But they were delivered outside the event being protested and involved no heckling of ICNA speakers inside the hall.

Nevertheless, CAIR-LA and other Islamist groups sought to have the councilwoman officially censored by the city council for simply expressing her opinion. Other than conceding that some of the speakers at the ICNA fundraiser were “controversial,” the CAIR-LA Communications Manager Munira Syeda reserved her criticism for the protesters.

CAIR wants a veto against politicians and their supporters who dare to strongly, but peacefully, protest a radical Islamist event outside of the event venue. At the same time, CAIR defends the anti-Israel Muslim Student Union hecklers’ veto, exercised inside the event venue by interfering with the Israeli ambassador’s right to deliver his speech to an audience that wanted to hear what he had to say without rude interruptions.

This same double standard underlies CAIR’s campaign to block federal and local elected officials from incorporating into their law enforcement training programs the truth about the radical Islamist agenda and the dangers posed by homegrown jihadists. CAIR is looking for a veto over who should be allowed to train law enforcement personnel and what should be taught. It wants no expert critics of Islamists and their anti-American agenda to participate in training programs that are supposed to educate law enforcement personnel about the ideological source of some of the real security dangers they are facing. CAIR is particularly afraid of someone like Nonie Darwish, who grew up in a strict Muslim home in Egypt and lived the first thirty years of her life under the yoke of sharia law.

The Obama administration and local enforcement agencies are succumbing to the Islamists’ pressure. Indeed, instead of learning the truth, law enforcement personnel are beginning to be spoon-fed the Islamists’ propaganda. For example, in Tulsa, Oklahoma recently, a police officer was punished for refusing to attend a mandatory Muslim prayer session that was supposed to help him understand Islam!

Here is a better suggestion for helping law enforcement personnel to learn about Islamic ideology, which goes beyond exposing them to Muslim religious prayers and other faith rituals. How about, as a start, requiring law enforcement personnel to familiarize themselves with the member handbook of the Islamic Circle of North America – the Islamist group which had invited violent jihadist sympathizers to speak at its California fundraiser?
The handbook proves the critics’ case, but perhaps its illustration of the Islamists’ supremacist caliphate message would be far more believable if communicated directly to the law enforcement personnel by the communications manager of CAIR’s Los Angeles, California branch herself, Munira Syeda. CAIR would have a much more difficult time dismissing, with its usual kill-the-messenger accusations of Islamophobia, what its own communications manager reads directly from the handbook.

Here are a few excerpts from the ICNA handbook to help her get started:

“The Islamic Circle of North America is…an organization struggling towards Iqamat-ad-Deen in this land… a national Islamic movement”

“‘Islamic movement’ is the term used for that organized and collective effort waged to establish Al-Islam in its complete form in all aspects of life. (Emphasis added)

“The following are some characteristics of the Islamic movement as we learn about it from the model of the Prophet Mohammad.

1) This movement is based on the ideology of Islam. It considers humanity as one family based upon our common parents and common Creator. Therefore, it addresses all human beings, regardless of their race, color, national origin, language, culture, ethnicity or economic status. It wants everyone to succeed before Allah. Its message is, ‘Oh Mankind, submit to your Lord who created you’ (2:21). (Emphasis added)

2) It considers disobedience to Allah as the root cause of all human problems. Moreover, it believes that obedience to Allah is the only solution for all human ills. Until the human being submits to Allah’s Guidance, there can be no true peace in our lives. (Emphasis added)

3) It believes that human beings are overburdened under the obedience of other human beings and their oppressive systems. It is only the obedience of Allah that will set everyone free…“ (Emphasis added

Wherever the Islamic movement succeeds to establish true Islamic society, they will form coalition and alliances. This will lead to the unity of the Ummah and towards the establishment of the Khilafah [the Caliphate].” (Emphasis added)

In addition to a reading from the Islamic Circle of North America handbook, the law enforcement training programs could include an expert in Islamic law such as Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, a CAIR and ICNA favorite who also was invited to the White House by President George W. Bush in the days following 9/11.

Dr. Siddiqi is the former president of the Islamic Society of North America, the Saudi-funded organization that is used by the Muslim World League to finance and exercise control over most of the mosques in the United States. Dr. Siddiqi is currently the chairman of the executive council of the Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Muslims who interpret Islamic law on the North American continent.

What better expert is there to speak about sharia law and the Islamist ideology than Dr. Siddiqi? Apparently, the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department thinks so, since he is planning a law enforcement “education” program at the Islamic Center with Siddiqi.

But this can only work if Dr. Siddiqi goes beyond the feel good rhetoric of inter-faith harmony that he likes to use when addressing Western audiences. He has to explain how the nice-sounding resolution passed this September by his Fiqh Council claiming that there is “no inherent conflict between the normative values of Islam and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights” (at least “so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience” to Allah) squares with some of his teachings about the rule of Allah over all aspects of our lives, Islamist notions of tolerance and supremacism, and the need to implement sharia law everywhere.

All this learned Islamic scholar has to do is elaborate on past statements attributed to him, such as the following:

“We must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”
“Our work, school, athletics activity, family life, economics, politics everything must be according to Allah’s Rules.”
“It is true that Islam stands for the sovereignty of Allah the Almighty and Allah’s rules are not limited to the acts of worship, they also include social, economic and political matters.”
“Tolerance according to Islam does not mean that we believe that all religions are the same. It does not mean that we do not believe in the supremacy of Islam over other faiths and ideologies.”
“Once more people accept Islam, insha’allah, this will lead to the implementation of Sharia in all areas.”

Of course, the last thing CAIR would want to do is persuade Dr. Siddiqi to own up to his own real beliefs as part of educating law enforcement personnel about Islamist ideology, or to recommend the inclusion of documents such as the ICNA handbook as part of the training curriculum. Instead, it cries Islamophobia in its relentless campaign to suppress the truth.

It is time that the spotlight is focused on CAIR itself and other Islamist groups which are pulling out all stops to impede effective law enforcement training and replace it with false, self-serving propaganda.

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