Hamas vs Fatah

The idea of a moderate form of Islamic religion is to date unsubstantiated. Please provide evidence.

Ruben

 

Moen, may I suggest a book to read. "The Bible as History" is a remarkable book which may change your mind.

Take Care
Ben

 

Well, congratulations on GD's contest anyway! :high5:

 

Thanks, Guess it's my lucky day...

 

My Islamic friends are moderate. as is most of the population of Deerborn MI.

 

http://www.freemuslims.org/

http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/

http://www.cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=1675&theType=NR

http://www.islam-democracy.org/terrorism_statement.asp

In Copenhagen moderate Muslims are speaking out. Hadi Kahn, an IT consultant and the chairman of the Organization of Pakistani Students in Denmark (OPSA), describes himself as a "modern Muslim living in a Western society." He says that "he does not feel he is being represented by the more radical Muslim groups."

"I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any “Islamic state” established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best."
A thought-provoking, controversial, pre-war article by Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D., February 12, 2003

Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam. Speaking at the conference in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, Sheikh Tantawi said extremist Islamic groups had appropriated Islam and its notion of jihad, or holy struggle, for their own ends.
BBC News, 11 July, 2003

Prominent Muslim scholar Dr. Youssef Al-Qaradawi has condemned Al-Qaeda for their fuel tanker suicide bombing of a centuries-old Jewish synagogue on the Tunisian island of Djerba in April 2002.

http://www.cair-net.org/crisiscenter/html/cair_ad.html

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm


Shaikh Saleh Al-Luheidan, Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council, Saudi Arabia:
"As a human community we must be vigilant and careful to oppose these pernicious and shameless evils, which are not justified by any sane logic, nor by the religion of Islam."
Statement of September 14, 2001, in "Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation," May 2004

Council of Saudi ‘Ulama', fatwa of February 2003:
"What is happening in some countries from the shedding of the innocent blood and the bombing of buildings and ships and the destruction of public and private installations is a criminal act against Islam. ... Those who carry out such acts have the deviant beliefs and misleading ideologies and are responsible for the crime. Islam and Muslims should not be held responsible for such actions."
The Dawn newspaper, Karachi, Pakistan, February 8, 2003


I could post and link to thousands and thousands of Muslims who have spoken out against terrorism and in support of peace. Many practice a moderate form of islam OR simply do not believe terrorism is justified. To a lot of muslims these terrorists are no different than an so called christian who bombs abortion clinics. I wont flood this thread with these links and posts as they are so plentiful just a quick search can find them nor do I think these will change a zealots mind as they dont help them continue hating and killing, it is the nature of a zealot (which we have several of here) to polarize and completely ignore all other information that does not fit in to their narrow scope. It is easier to concentrate ONLY on the bad guys and lump everyone in that catagory...and again...the ones who are extreme and scream the loudest are the ones who are heard. Seeing a christian denouncing all muslims as evil is no less disturbing than seeing a muslim denouncing all jews as evil to anyone with any human decency.


The bible has many calls to war and violence as well (please dont make me post all the terrible passages of the bible, we all know they are there) but MOST Christians do not act on these verses and instead concentrate on the peaceful message of the new testament. This is the same with many if not most muslims...I am married to a Muslim who supports president Bush and America, none of her family whether here or in Pakistan are extremists, they are just normal people looking to live their lives in peace...it is the extremists on ALL sides that give each one a black eye and threatens ALL of us who want peace...Many muslims are trying to change the practices that rob women of rights and many of the other traditions that rob people of rights and dignity...much the way christians have reformed from the times THEY robbed women of their rights and practiced brutal forms of old testament justice. To say there are no moderate muslims is an attempt to vilify a whole religion and is a form of extremist propaganda no better than those who would vilify all Jews or Christians...Its dishonest, deceitful, and extremist.

 

Daniel
Pipes Daniel Pipes Mailing List
January 1, 2007


Homepage | Articles | Weblog | Reviews | Unsubscribe
Weblog
The Middle East and Islam Dominate U.S. Public Life

It's about as official as can be: in the words of an Associated Press end-of-year story, "Events in the Mideast shaped much of how we [Americans] viewed 2006."

As voted by AP members, only one of the top 10 news stories of 2006 (#5, Congressional scandals) had nothing to do with the Middle East. Five of them were entirely Middle Eastern or Muslim in content (#1 Iraq; #6 Saddam Hussein convicted and executed, #7 the still-unnamed Lebanon war during the summer, #9 the London airliner plot, #10 the disaster in Darfur). Four of them were in substantial part Middle Eastern or Muslim (#2 the U.S. elections, #3 nuclear standoffs with North Korea and Iran, #4 illegal immigration, #7 Donald Rumsfeld resigns as secretary of defense).

Comments: (1) This domination of the news is not a sudden thing but has been building over decades; though less dramatic the case, I recall the Middle East having an outsized media presence when I entered the field in 1969 – and that was before several Arab-Israeli wars, the 1973-74 oil crisis the Iranian revolution, the Kuwait war, and other mega-events.

(2) This prominence does not mean that the Middle East and Muslims are more important than other regions and peoples, but that they are more in ferment. Little breaking news came out of the Soviet Union in its time or China today, but endless twists and turns take place in – and are reported prominently from – Gaza or Iraq. (December 31, 2006)

Permalink | Reader Comments



Islamists in the Hospital Ward

A number of incidents are showing the deep incompatibility of radical Islam with modern medicine. Here are a trio to get this blog going, with more examples to be listed, in reverse chronological order, as they occur:



A typical anti-bacterial gel found in UK hospitals.


Muslim visitors refuse anti-bacterial gel: British hospitals offer dispensers with anti-bacterial gel outside wards so that visitors can be sure not to bring in such infections as MRSA and PVL. But the gel contains alcohol, prompting some Muslims to refuse to use the hand cleansers on religious grounds. A National Health Service employee, Theresa Poupa told in December 2006 of her experience visiting a sick relative at the London Chest Hospital:

I could not believe it - the signs are large enough and clear enough but they just took no notice and walked straight onto the ward. I was there almost every day for three weeks and I saw it repeated dozens and dozens of times. When I raised the matter with the nursing staff they just shrugged and said that Muslims were refusing to use the gel because it contained alcohol. They said they couldn't force visitors to use the gel and I understand that — but I was astonished that anyone who didn't wash their hands was allowed onto a ward. I know the dangers that bugs like MRSA can cause. They kill hundreds of patients a year.


Male refused treatment by female doctors: A 17-year-old male shepherd from Konya, Turkey, referred to only as "A.G.," arrived at the Konya Testing Hospital complaining of swollen testicles. He was sent to get ultrasound tests, but two headscarved (i.e., Islamist) female radiology doctors refused him service. Not receiving proper attention, A.G. later had one of his testicles removed by operation. The case has provoked much attention. The hospital's head of urology, Celal Tutuncu, portrayed the case as very "black and white," and said that action would be taken. Members of the opposition CHP party raised the case in parliament in December 2006. A CHP lawyer, Atilla Kart, noted that "This is the destruction wrought by religious references spilling over into public administration."

Male relatives preventing female patients from being treated by male doctors: So rampant is the problem in France of Muslim husbands preventing their wives and other female relatives from being treated by male doctors (for example, women in labor have not had epidurals because the anesthetist was a man) that Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin reportedly planned in February 2004 to propose legislation to stop this from happening (how he plans to do this is not explained). (December 29, 2006)

Permalink | Reader Comments



Mosque in Cordoba, Church in Damascus

Spain's Islamic Board wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI to be allowed to pray in Cordoba Cathedral, on the grounds that the building was originally a mosque before being transformed into a church in the thirteenth century. "What we wanted was not to take over that holy place," reads the Islamic Board's letter, "but to create in it, together with you and other faiths, an ecumenical space unique in the world which would have been of great significance in bringing peace to humanity."

The Islamic Board took this initiative after senior Catholic clergy announced they "did not recommend" this step and indeed declared themselves unprepared to permit the cathedral's shared use with any other faith. On an operational level, security guards in the cathedral are said often to prevent Muslims from praying inside the medieval mosque that surrounds its church structure.

The Islamic Board's general secretary, Mansur Escudero, complained that some in the Church feel threatened by Spain's growing Muslim population. "There are reactionary elements within the Catholic Church, and when they hear about the construction of a mosque, or Muslim teachings in state schools, or about veils, they see it as a sign we are growing and they oppose it."

Comment: The Muslim demand is all very reasonable – but only if Muslims permit reciprocal rights to Christians. For example, the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus is built over a Byzantine church and to this day contains a shrine said to contain the head of John the Baptist; Christians should be granted leave to pray there. Or the grandest church of Byzantium, Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, for centuries a mosque and now a museum – it too should be made available for Christian services. The Vatican has made reciprocity the cornerstone of its relations with Muslims, and this looks like a simple place to start implementing that policy.



St John's Shrine, which is inside the Umayyad Mosque, Damascus.




(December 26, 2006)

Permalink | Reader Comments



Is the Hatay Problem Solved?

Ever since the French government ceded the Alexandretta province of Syria to Turkey in 1939, its control by Ankara has been a sore, obstructing the two countries' relations and at times exacerbating crises between them, most recently in 1998.



Hatay, a province of Turkey since 1939. Alexandretta (or Iskanderun) is its capital.


It therefore came as a bombshell to read yesterday an article by Yoav Stern, "Turkey singing a new tune," in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz that the 66-year-old problem has been solved, and all the more so as the news comes bye-the-bye in an article about Turkish-Israeli relations.

The question asked by Channel 2's analyst for Arab affairs, Ehud Ya'ari, brought a satisfied smile to the face of Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom at the joint press conference held last Tuesday in Jerusalem with Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. Ya'ari asked the most interesting question at the press conference, which touched on the territorial conflict between Syria and Turkey. "Can Syria's recognition last month of full Turkish sovereignty over the Hatay province be seen as a precedent for the case of the Golan Heights?" Ya'ari asked.

Everyone waited suspense fully for an answer from Gul, who immediately perceived a trap. He answered with diplomatic finesse, without batting an eyelid: "The two cases are not similar, there is no territorial disagreement between Turkey and Syria, and in the second case, the United Nations determined that the territory is occupied."

The question illustrates the way in which Turkey's relations with Syria resemble Israeli-Syrian relations. On the territorial level, there is a long-standing conflict between the two countries, which was finally resolved last month, away from the eyes of the media. The conflict involved a region known as the Hatay province in Turkey and Alexandretta in Syria. Conquered in 1938 by the Turkish army, the Turks view it as an inseparable part of their country. The Syrians view it as a part of their homeland that was torn away with the consent of the French during the Mandate period, before the Syrians achieved independence. The Syrians point to the Arab residents of the region to bolster their claim.

Ever since Syrian independence in 1946, the area has been a source of constant tension. Until last month. Turkey and Syria spent a year and a half preparing a free-trade agreement between the two countries. Two Syrian prime ministers and the president - Mohammed Mustafa Mero, Naji al-Otari and Bashar Assad - visited Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan paid a return visit last month and finally signed an agreement in Damascus.


Even more surprisingly, this Ha'aretz article was cited today as a source of information on the agreement by the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet, implying that the Turkish press knew nothing of this major accord, apparently signed on December 22.

Looking back on the coverage of that summit meeting, one finds just hints of such a deal. Here is Burak Akıncı's account for Agence France-Presse, dated December 22 and titled "Turkey, Syria sign free-trade accord amid warming ties on Erdogan visit."

Former foes Turkey and Syria signed a free-trade accord and said they had agreed to put their differences behind them during a visit Wednesday by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan, at the start of a two-day mission, and his Syrian counterpart Mohammed Naji Otri signed the deal, which had been under negotiation for several years. …

A Turkish diplomatic source said Damascus lifted its reservations to signing the trade deal "after a certain accord" was reached on Turkey's sovereignty in the southern province of Hatay, formerly Alexandretta, on which Syria had claims.




Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Syrian president Bashshar al-Asad, getting along.


This all very elusive. Two questions come to mind: (1) How can such a major development not be reported on? One imagines that the Syrian regime is not exactly eager to have the news reported on, while the Turk leadership is willing to keep quiet about its victory, if that is the price it must pay. (2) Where exactly do things stand on Hatay? Has Bashar Assad given up Syrian claims in perpetuity, or something lesser? Has the claim been removed from schoolbooks, government maps, political rhetoric, and so on?

Comment: If the Syrians really have abandoned this claim, it was foreshadowed already four years ago. Here is Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara, quoted in an Agence France-Presse report from February 5, 2001 (not online):

Asked about Damascus' claims over the southern Turkish province of Hatay, which is often shown as Syrian territory on Syrian maps, Shara said that "maybe several years" were needed to settle the problem. "Issues that seem sensitive today, could be easily resolved in the future when the bilateral climate reaches a level at which they will not pose difficulties," the Syrian minister said. "It is wrong to give priorities to such issues now becuase this could harm cooperation in other fields ... In the end they will be resolved, but we should not push more than we have to."


(January 10, 2005)

Jan. 24, 2005 update: Ehud Ya'ari, cited above, has fleshed out the picture in his Jerusalem Report column dated today, "Syrian Overture" (not online):

For years I've made it a rule to read every article that political columnist Rosanna Boumunsef writes in An-Nahar, Lebanon's most important daily. She knows what she's talking about and writes with precision.

So too with her column of December 28, following the visit of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to Syria. She quotes Lebanese Druse leader Walid Jumblatt, who of late has become the most vocal spokesman for opponents of Syrian rule in his country: "Syria has gotten over its Alexandretta complex," Jumblatt asserted, "and agreed to having Europe on its border." In other words, Syria has given up its 65-year-old claim to the sanjak (province) of Alexandretta (Iskanderun) on the Mediterranean coast, realizing that with Turkey due to join the European Union, there is no chance whatsoever of returning the province to Arab rule.

Alexandretta was given up by Syria's mandatory ruler, France, in 1939 and annexed by Turkey, which renamed the province Hatay. Turkish settlement in the region totally changed the demographic balance, reducing the relative size of the Arab minority. A year ago Syrian leader Bashar al-Asad visited Ankara for the first time, and he carefully avoided saying a word about the contested territory. Since then there's been a rapid rapprochement between the two countries, which as recently as 1998 were on the verge of war because of Syria's support for the Kurdish rebellion led by the PKK. Recently, when Erdogan visited Damascus in turn, an agreement was signed on jointly building a dam on the Orontes River on the border between Alexandretta and Syria - putting an official seal on Syria's acceptance of the loss of the sanjak.

Boumunsef quotes Asad as saying in private conversations with several of his guests that he is proud of his success at establishing warm ties with Turkey "despite the sharp territorial dispute." Asad added that "in this framework, Syria can reach peace with Israel as well." What did he mean by that? It's not clear, but Boumunsef cautiously asks, "Is the meaning of these statements that flexibility is possible in dealing with other issues, similar to his pragmatic approach to Alexandretta?"

That is: Could it be that one day Syria will deal with the Golan Heights as it is now dealing with Alexandretta?

Let's stress: Syria has not signed on to any concession concerning Alexandretta. In principle, it maintains its claim to sovereignty there. But one official commentator, Imad Shu'eibi, head of the Center for Strategic Studies in Damascus, has made clear that in fact it's been decided to "put off for coming generations" the dream of Syrian Alexandretta, and to not let the dispute prevent cooperation in other areas.

The Syrians have a very hard time explaining in public their surrender to the Turks. They are also signaling that the Golan is different. Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Shara has even made a point of correcting the impression that Asad is ready for negotiations "without preconditions," and has explained that insisting on a return to the June 4, 1967 lines is not a "condition" but a "legitimate necessity."

But one cannot avoid concluding from the Alexandretta business that Syria does not regard its borders as eternally sacred. And not only has it accepted the loss of Alexandretta, but in a border agreement signed last month with Jordan, Damascus adopted another principle: Demography can result in border corrections. Syria got Jordan's assent to annexing land along the Yarmuk River where Syrian peasants settled after the Syrian invasion of Jordan in Black September, 1970, and in exchange gave up land to Jordan in other areas.

Asad's pragmatic flexibility on borders may indicate that wider strategic concerns are getting preference over the old slogans about holding on to "every grain of sand" and the oaths never to forget "usurped" land. So there is reason to see whether the young president is willing to consider cautiously a change in Syria's stance toward Israel without demanding that withdrawal from the Golan be the first, immediate, topic on the agenda.


Ya'ari then goes on the consider the implications of the the Hatay recognition for the Golan Heights and Israel.

May 28, 2005 update: In a news item on a Syrian missile that malfunctioned and exploded in southern Hatay, Agence France-Presse gives a little background on Hatay: Syria and Turkey, it writes, "share a long border, and Hatay, which is claimed by Syria, is at its western end." Reiterating this point, AFP notes that, "Despite the improved ties between the two countries, two sticking points remain: the waters of the Euphrates River, which has its source in Turkey, and the status of Hatay."

Comment: Either Agence France-Presse has forgotten its own reporting (see its December 22, 2004 coverage from Damascus, quoted above) or the Syrians still are claiming Hatay. Which is it?

Dec. 22, 2006 update: Two years after the signing of this accord, the Syrian tourism ministry still shows a map that claims Hatay as an integral part of the Syrian Arab Republic.



Map on the Syrian Ministry of Tourism website. (This identical map appears whether one uses the English, French, or Arabic versions of the website.)




Comment: Is Damascus playing the same game with Ankara that the Arabs do all the time with Jerusalem, that is, sign an agreement and then ignore it?

Permalink | Reader Comments


You are subscribed to this list as ruben@mrbrklyn.com.
To unsubscribe from this list, go to http://www.danielpipes.org/unsubscribe.php
To subscribe to this list, go to http://www.danielpipes.org/subscribe.php
(Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings 2-3 times a week.)

Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail services:
Middle East Forum (media alerts, event reports, MEQ articles): http://www.meforum.org/subscribe.php
Campus Watch (research, news items, press releases): http://www.campus-watch.org/subscribe.php

You may freely forward this information, but on condition that you send the text as an integral whole along with complete information about its author, date, and source.

 

I'll be looking those up, but to say the region is moderate is worse than lieing, it is playing with peoples lives.


By the way, the Shiek Mohammed Sayed Tantawi is one of the most virulent anti-semites on the planet. You can scratch that one off your list of "moderates".

Ruben

 

Prince Charles and the Terror Sheikh
Prince Charles is in Egypt to accept an honorary degree from Al Azhar University. While there, Charles addressed terror:

REFLECTING on how a terrorist outrage shattered his own life as a young man, the Prince of Wales spoke last night of his “heavy heart” at the death and destruction he sees in the world as he called for a greater tolerance between faiths.

Arriving in Egypt at the start of only his second official overseas tour with the Duchess of Cornwall, the Prince spoke of how the murder of his mentor Earl Mountbatten, who was blown up while out fishing with his family in Ireland, had given him a personal insight into the impact of terrorism.



“I find my heart is incredibly heavy from all the destruction and death that occurs,” he said. “I know so well from having experienced the horror of terrorism myself, in losing my beloved great-uncle Lord Mountbatten back in 1979 when he was blown up in a terrorist bomb. I do have some understanding I think, a little, of what people go through with these horrors.”

He and his wife listened to the a sheikh at the university speaking. The speaker was in fact it is Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi:



That name may sound familiar. As Robert Spencer points out:

George W. Bush knows that Islam is a religion of peace because Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi said so. Two months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the President told the United Nations that Tantawi, "the Sheikh of Al-Azhar University, the world's oldest Islamic institution of higher learning, declared that terrorism is a disease, and that Islam prohibits killing innocent civilians."

But Tantawi seemed to change his mind shortly thereafter. Spencer mentions the MEMRI report about Tantawi, quoting an Al-Azhar website:

The great Imam of Al­Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, demanded that the Palestinian people, of all factions, intensify the martyrdom operations [i.e. suicide attacks] against the Zionist enemy, and described the martyrdom operations as the highest form of Jihad operations. He says that the young people executing them have sold Allah the most precious thing of all."

"[Sheikh Tantawi] emphasized that every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land and cause the cruel Israeli aggression to retreat…"

So Prince Charles is happily accepting a doctorate from someone who explicitly advocates and praises the murder of innocents, and also praising his brand of Islam.

And as far as I can tell not a single UK newspaper has bothered pointing out this fact.

posted by Elder of Ziyon at 12:38 PM 3 comments so far! | Trackback (0)

 

The fact still remains they are not all evil, they do not all support terrorism, and many are moderate and to say differently makes you as bad as they when they say all jews are bad...disturbing in the least...I dont expect you to understand this.

 

THE MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Special Dispatch Series - No. 363
April 7, 2002 No.363

Leading Egyptian Government Cleric Calls For: 'Martyrdom Attacks that Strike Horror into the Hearts of the Enemies of Allah'

Within the past year, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, the top Egyptian cleric of Al­Azhar University, has shifted his position regarding the targeting of civilians in suicide bombings. While he previously stated that Palestinians should refrain from targeting civilians,[1] he recently declared that martyrdom (suicide) operations and the killing of civilians are permitted acts and that more such attacks should be carried out. Tantawi's positions were posted on www.lailatalqadr.com, a website associated with Al­Azhar. The following are excerpts from the report:

"The great Imam of Al­Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, demanded that the Palestinian people, of all factions, intensify the martyrdom operations [i.e. suicide attacks] against the Zionist enemy, and described the martyrdom operations as the highest form of Jihad operations. He says that the young people executing them have sold Allah the most precious thing of all."

"[Sheikh Tantawi] emphasized that every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land and cause the cruel Israeli aggression to retreat…"

These words were spoken at a reception held by Sheikh Tantawi for Israeli Arab Democratic Party leader Abd Al­Wahhab Al­Darawsheh and the delegation that accompanied him. During the meeting, Al­Darawsheh stressed the depth of relations between the Palestinian and Egyptian peoples, and stated that the Palestinian people was steadfast, would not abandon its land and would continue in its path until it achieved one of two good things: victory or martyrdom.[2]

Egypt's new mufti, Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Al­Tayyeb, also expressed his support for suicide attacks. Sheikh Al­Tayyeb took office when the term of his predecessor, Sheikh Nasr Farid Wasil, was not renewed due to his opposition to Sheikh Tantawi's previous religious rulings against suicide attacks.

Until now, in all of his interviews with the Egyptian press since becoming mufti, Sheikh Al­Tayyeb has avoided discussing suicide bombings. But since Sheikh Tantawi's call for suicide attacks, Sheikh Al­Tayyeb has declared that "the solution to the Israeli terror lies in a proliferation of Fidai [martyrdom] attacks that strike horror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah. The Islamic countries, peoples and rulers alike, must support these martyrdom attacks."[3]

It should be noted that a March 18, 2002 demonstration at Al­Azhar University featured eight students who had been trained to carry out suicide attacks against Israelis.[4] Volunteering for suicide bombings against Israelis has become a popular expression in Egypt – so much so that Mahmoud Al­Zahhar, a Hamas leader in Gaza, told the Israeli Arab weekly Kul Al­Arab, "Two days ago, in Alexandria, enrolment began for volunteers for martyrdom [operations]. Two thousand students from the University of Alexandria signed up to die a martyr's death. This is the real Egyptian people."[5]

[1] MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 53, "Debating the Religious, Political and Moral Legitimacy of Suicide Bombings Part 1: The Debate over Religious Legitimacy," May 2, 2001.

[2] www.lailatalqadr.com/stories/n040401.shtml, April 4, 2002.

[3] www.lailatalqadr.com/stories/p4040401.shtml, April 4, 2002.

[4] Al­Mustaqbal (Lebanon), March 19, 2002.

[5] Kul Al­Arab

 

Monday, January 1, 2007 11:40:07 PM

Muslim Brotherhood bringing the Jihad back to Egypt?

The terrorist attack in a Cairo tourist bazaar was committed by an Islamic suicide bomber; don’t be surprised to see a major crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood and their fellow Islamic supremacists, because this time Egypt’s tourist industry is at stake: Egypt Blast Raises Concerns of Insurgency.

The terrorist attack in a Cairo tourist bazaar was committed by an Islamic suicide bomber. The blast injured 18 people, including Egyptians, Americans and French. An American man in his 20s and a French woman were killed. Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the head of Al-Azhar, one of the oldest and most prominent Muslim scholarly institutions, said the bombing could “only be carried out by someone who lost his mind.”

If the target had been Jews, or Americans in Iraq, Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi would have been praising the bomber as a “martyr.

_____________________________

The blast injured 18 people, including Egyptians, Americans and French. An American man in his 20s and a French woman were killed. Investigators were running DNA tests on the severely mutilated third body, which authorities say likely is that of the bomber.

A previously unknown group, the al-Ezz Islamic Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack in an Internet statement, saying it was a message to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Islamic militancy still exists in the country. The authenticity of the claim could not be independently verified.

Egyptian officials sought to limit possible damage to Egypt’s vital tourism industry, stressing there was no evidence so far the bomber was part of a wider group.

“Initial evidence is that it was an individual act. The way in which the explosive was prepared was very primitive,” Prime Minister Ahmed Nazief told reporters after visiting victims at hospital.

Tourism Minister Ahmed El Maghraby said it was unlikely the blast was a prelude to a concerted terror campaign, adding: “So far, we have had no requests from tourists to leave early from Egypt.”

Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, the head of Al-Azhar, one of the oldest and most prominent Muslim scholarly institutions, said the bombing could “only be carried out by someone who lost his mind.”

If the target had been Jews, or Americans in Iraq, Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi would have been praising the bomber as a “martyr.”

This brings to mind the killing of 58 tourists in Luxor way back in 1997. Is Egypt sliding back to chaos, a la Lebanon?

The Jihad in Egypt seems to be hotting up again, especially since President Hosni Mubarak, after being nudged by President Bush, has loosened his control over freedom of expression and protest. The worry is that, all the wrong type of folks are misusing this freedom. Freedom can be a dangerous tool in the hands of dangerous persons, as seems to be the case with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Story CreditABC News and Little Green Footballs

 

I missed the CAIR link. That is NOT a moderate organization but a very fundementalist one, funded with foriegn moneys.


CAIR's Legal Tribulations

June 27, 2003

For several years, one of my severest and most persistent critics has been one Randall ("Ismail") Royer, an American convert to Islam. Here's a typical comment of his from his weblog dated Sept. 17, 2002: after calling me a "pop bigot" he comments on my "War on Campus" article with the following elevated and elegant commentary: "[Pipes] has served up another steaming shovelful of fertilizer. What a joy it is to read this guy. His stuff requires no real effort to deconstruct, no deliberate propaganda analysis to realize how he intends to deceive the reader."

I mention this unsavory person because today he was indicted and arrested for his association with terrorism, specifically his having joined the Pakistani group Lashkar-e-Taiba, traveled to Pakistan, done propaganda work for it, and "fired at Indian positions in Kashmir." In addition, the indictment also states that Royer "possessed in his automobile an AK-47-style rifle and 219 rounds of ammunition" in September 2001. The grand jury charges that Royer "did unlawfully and knowingly begin, provide for, prepare a means for, and take part in a military expedition and enterprise to be carried on from the United States against the territory and dominion of India, a foreign state with whom the United States was at peace."

It's also worth noting that Royer was working for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), militant Islam's most aggressive political organization in North America, when he began training with Lashkar-e-Taiba. (He served there variously as a communications specialist and a civil rights coordinator; see an IslamOnline "Live Dialogue" for him sharing a by-line with CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad.) This means that CAIR now has a record of at least two former employees indicted and arrested in 2003 on terrorism charges; the other was Bassem Khafagi, CAIR's director of community relations before his arrest this January. Oh, and one must not forget that a member of CAIR's advisory board, Siraj Wahhaj, was named as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments nearly a decade ago. So, CAIR not only apologizes for terrorism but is now implicitly accused of having more direct links to it. (June 27, 2003)

Defendant Randall T. Royer, shown at far right at a hearing in June, faces at least 20 years in prison. Credit: William J. Hennessy Jr. for The Washington Post

July 9 update: Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg argued in court, reports Karen Branch-Brioso in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch, that Royer is "dangerous … and should be kept in jail pending trial." As proof, Kromberg offered several pieces of evidence, including these two: (1) Royer's admission in his testimony before a federal grand jury in St. Louis last year that he fought with jihadists in Bosnia under one Abu Zubar, who had been "sent by Osama bin Laden to Bosnia." (2) Ramon Royer, Ismail's father, having rented a room in his St. Louis-area home in 2000 to Ziyad Khaleel (also known as Ziyad Sadaqa), a student at Columbia College in Columbia, Mo. Khaleel bought the satellite phone carried to Afghanistan by Tarik Hamdi (on which, see my article, "Bin Laden and Herndon, Virginia") and used by Al-Qaeda for planning the two U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa in August 1998. Kromberg said this showed how "the connections between Lashkar-e-Taiba and al-Qaida are manifold."

July 12 update: Royer's attempt to get out on bail was denied yesterday, and so will have to remain in jail until the expected November trial. The key reason for the bail refusal, according to The Washington Post, is that the judge was "not satisfied with Royer's explanation of why he had an AK-47-style rifle and more than 200 rounds of ammunition when stopped by Alexandria police" in September 2001. If convicted, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch adds, Royer faces up to 55 years on the weapons charges alone.



Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR's Texas chapter and businessman convicted of terrorism-related charges.


July 31 update: A feisty organization called Anti-CAIR put out a notice today pointing to the fact that when Royer was driving around the Washington, D.C. area in September 2001 with an AK-47-style rifle and more than 200 rounds of ammunition, he was not a former CAIR employee but an active one, as indicated by a USA Today story from that time referring to him as "Ismail Royer of the Council on American-Islamic Relations." So, to sum up: CAIR now can boast one former employee and one active-duty employee arrested on terrorism charges, plus one member of its advisory board named as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in a foiled terrorist attack.

August 26 update: In a breakthrough in the "paintball case," three of Royer's associates plead guilty, reports the Washington Post, admitting to such charges as conspiracy, discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, attending a Lashkar camp in Pakistan, illegally transportating a firearm in interstate commerce, and transfering a firearm for use in a crime of violence. Presumably, this development enhances the prosecution's case against the hold-outs, including Royer.

Sept. 9, 2003 update: Bassem Khafagi, the former CAIR employee, pleaded guilty today at a plea hearing of (1) making "false material statements" on his nonimmigrant visa application on Nov. 8, 2000, in Kuwait City, Kuwait and (2) passing bad checks for thousands of dollars at two U.S. banks in early 2001. Khafagi faces up to a $250,000 fine on the visa fraud conviction and 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine for each of the two counts of bank fraud. His sentencing is scheduled to take place on December 4.

Sept. 10, 2003 update: Matthew Epstein of the Investigative Project points out today in testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee ("Saudi Support for Islamic Extremism in the United States") that a fourth CAIR-connected person has been indicted on terrorism, money laundering or fraud related charges. Ghassan Elashi was, according to articles of incorporation filed with the Texas Secretary of State on September 29, 1998, a founding board member of CAIR's Texas chapter. Then, in December 2002, Elashi and his four brothers were charged with "illegal exports, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist, conspiracy, and money laundering."

Following the arrest of the Elashis, Steve McGonigle of the Dallas Morning News revealed (in "Aid push made for 5 tied to Hamas: Backers seek to raise $500,000 for Muslim brothers' legal team," currently available here) that CAIR's Texas chairman Mohamed Elmougy defended them: "All I can tell you is the community is behind the Elashi brothers, and they are caught in a kind of political game." CAIR was also active in funding Elashi's defense via a nonprofit entity called the Muslim Legal Fund of America. The Muslim Legal Fund of America's website, McGonigle notes, "lists its board of directors as a former board chairman of CAIR, a current CAIR board member, [and] a former president of the Dallas chapter of the Islamic Circle of North America."

September 23, 2003 update: A fourth member of the alleged conspiracy pleaded guilty yesterday, reports The Washington Post. In addition to closing in on the remaining seven alleged members, the confession by Muhammed Aatique contains two points of interest. First, he answered in the affirmative to the judge's question "Did you understand that one of the countries against whom you might ultimately have to pick up arms could be the United States?" Second, he acknowledged that the paintball games the group had played were "conducted as sort of a military training," an admission that takes on added interest when one recalls Royer's sarcasm on this very point: "Ooooh, gosh, they have weapons," he told The Washington Post back in June. "I really resent the idea that a Muslim with a gun — he's a threat. A Jew with a gun — he's not a threat." Royer, a former spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sure has a way with words.

September 25, 2003 update: The seven remaining men who have not pleaded guilty, including Royer, were accused in a new, 32-count indictment with conspiring to help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban by battling U.S. troops in Afghanistan. At a meeting in Virginia shortly after 9/11, one unidentified co-conspirator is quoted saying that U.S. military forces in Afghanistan "would be legitimate targets of violent jihad" and that the group had a duty to fight them. These charges considerably up the ante; previously, the group had been indicted only on charges of helping Lashkar-e-Taiba against India.

Nov. 13, 2003 update: U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff today sentenced Bassem Khafagi to the 10 months of time already he has already served in prison, reports the Associated Press. It also indicates that "An immigration judge ordered Khafagi deported in August. He is expected to be deported soon to his native Egypt, where he is to join his wife and U.S.-born children."

Jan. 16, 2004 update: Back in August 2003, not long after his arrest, Royer stated that U.S. government "policy is to look for any tiny thing they can bust people on, to arrest them, to have them under control." Well, today that "tiny thing" turned out not to be so tiny. This is the day that Randall Todd Royer entered his surprise plea in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, of guilty to one count of using and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and with carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony. He faces a minimum of 20 years in prison. Royer said he took "full responsibility for my actions" as he entered the plea. His lawyer, John Nassikas, said Royer admits that an object of the conspiracy was to fight against India in violation of U.S. law. His lawyer, John Nassikas, said Royer admits that an object of the conspiracy was to fight against India in violation of U.S. law. His father, Ramon Royer, explained Randall's guilty plea as choosing to accept the lesser charges rather than face the more severe charges at trial. "It's a trade-off between that less than 20 years or, if he went to trial, he had a chance to go to jail for the rest of his life. What he had to put in balance is four kids and a wife - and whether he'd ever see them again."

Jan. 23, 2004 update: The plot thickens with the news, provided in fullest form in the Syracuse Post-Standard, that CAIR's former director of community relations Bassem Khafagi – whom last we heard from above on Sept. 9 when he pleaded guilty to two criminal counts – is connected to Rafil Dhafir, the Syracuse-area oncologist accused of illegally sending money to Iraq via a charity called "Help the Needy." Specifically, Khafagi and Dhafir jointly "owned a Sir Speedy printing franchise in Ann Arbor, Mich., until 1998." The connection between the two – one an Islamist and the other accused of being a Saddam Hussein agent – appears to be their affiliation to the Michigan-based Islamic Assembly of North America. A major article on this organization in the Washington Post quotes court papers describing it as engaged in the "dissemination of radical Islamic ideology, the purpose of which was indoctrination, recruitment of members and the instigation of acts of violence and terrorism."

March 4, 2004 update: In addition to the six "paintball" defendants who previously had pled guilty, three more of them today were convicted by a court in Virginia, one of them of conspiring to assist the Taliban. (One was acquitted and one more awaits trial.) This occasion brings the court case to near-closure and prompts some reminiscing about the skeptical reactions that some observers had about the government's case.

For example, when Randall Todd ("Ismail") Royer, a CAIR functionary and also a leader of the "Virginia jihad network," or "paintball brigade" was arrested in 2003, Reason magazine web editor Tim Cavanaugh was disturbed. Days later, in "Wahhabi Who? The strange case of Ismail Royer," Cavanaugh wrote that for him, the "real mystery" of the case was the involvement of Royer, "whose prior writings give little indication that he was a jihadist." Cavanaugh then cited a number of Royer's articles and characterized them as "outspoken … but pretty far from militancy" and concluded that until Royer's arrest a week earlier, "I'd have named Royer as somebody presenting the kind of moderate Islamic point of view everybody claims to want to hear. I'm still not sure I should be revising that view." To gild the lily, Cavanaugh quoted Ashraf Nubani, a Virginia attorney advising Royer, to the effect that Royer's "moderate views are not just something that he's prepared for this situation. These are opinions he has been saying in public for ten years."

Cavanaugh's affection for Royer extended to a sideswipe of author Stephen Schwartz (who had denounced Royer for his Wahhabi outlook and harassment of non-Wahhabi Muslims), writing, "just one person seems relieved that Ismail Royer" had been arrested. "That person would be Stephen Schwartz." (Cavanaugh seems to have missed the opening salvo in this weblog entry, where I also expressed relief at the arrest.)

But when Royer pled guilty to federal charges involving weapons and explosives on January 16, 2004, Tim Cavanaugh was strangely silent. Come on Tim, how about reminding your readers that you made this mistake? How about acknowledging that Schwartz was right in exposing that Royer claimed Wahhabism "is a figment of the imagination of extreme Sufis, Westerners, and others who feel threatened by authentic Islam"? And that Schwartz was right to denounce Royer's "harassment of the Saudi dissident Ali al-Ahmed of the Washington-based Saudi Institute".

More broadly, those inexpert in Islam, like Cavanaugh, only make fools of themselves when they defend what they imagine is the "moderate Islamic point of view" of criminal extremists like Royer.

April 9, 2004 update: The U.S. Department of Justice announced today Royer's sentencing:

Royer, 31, pled guilty in January 2004 to a two-count criminal information charging him with aiding and abetting the use and discharge of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and with aiding and abetting the carrying of an explosive during the commission of a felony. … Royer was sentenced today to 20 years in prison. Judge [Leonie] Brinkema sentenced him to serve 10 years in prison on both counts, and the sentences are to run consecutively. In addition, he was sentenced to three years of supervised release.

The press release goes on to point out that the government's investigation of "the Virginia jihad network" that Royer belonged to is continuing and that, under the terms of his plea agreements, Royer is "required to cooperate fully with the government in the investigation and prosecution of other individuals associated with this network."

April 29, 2004 update: Joe Kaufman breaks the news at FrontPageMag.com today of what may be a fifth CAIR associate arrested for terrorism-related activities (the others are Randall Royer, Bassem Khafegi, Siraj Wahhaj, and Ghassan Elashi). His name is familiar and his arrest was back in 2002; the news is his connection to CAIR. He is Rabih Haddad, executive director of the Global Relief Foundation until its closing by the feds and Haddad's own arrest and eventual deportation. Kaufman found the following statement at a well-informed and apparently reliable website:

Rabih Haddad is an effective fundraiser for the mosques in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and for the Ann Arbor chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington-based Islamic advocacy group.

Kaufman mentions this piece of evidence in the course of showing an extensive web of ties between CAIR on the one hand and Global Relief and another shuttered "Islamic charity," the Holy Land Foundation. He concludes from these connections that "in late 2001, CAIR appeared to be in violation of United States law, as in regards to the providing of material support to terrorists."

July 7, 2004 update: Ghassan Elashi – a founding board member of CAIR's Texas chapter – was convicted today of terrorism-related charges, along with four of his brothers (Bayan, Basman, Hazim and Ihsan). Specifically, they conspired to use their Dallas-are computer services business, InfoCom Corporation, to send seven illegal high-tech shipments to Libya and four to Syria, both of whose governments are declared state-sponsors of terrorism. In addition, InfoCom stood accused of undervaluing the value of shipments to help Middle Eastern customers avoid paying customs duties. As the Dallas Morning News sums up the three weeks of testimony, government witnesses established that the Elashi brothers "had run their company, InfoCom Corp., like an outlaw enterprise with little or no regard for export laws or lying to the government." Ghassan, InfoCom's vice president of international marketing, was convicted of three counts of conspiracy, one county of money laundering and two counts of making false statements about shipments. Another CAIR link to terrorism is thus established. Looking ahead, Ghassan and two brothers (Basman and Bayan) face another federal trial on charges alleging they knowingly did business with Mousa Abu Marzook of the terrorist group Hamas.

To sum up the state of CAIR's legal play: two of its associates (Ghassan Elashi, Randall Royer) have been convicted on terrorism-related charges, one (Bassem Khafegi) convicted on fraud charges, two (Rabih Haddad, Bassem Khafegi) have been deported, and one (Siraj Wahhaj) remains at large.

July 10, 2004 update: CAIR's Dallas-Fort Worth chapter responded to the Elashi verdict with the predictable mix of vitriol and victimhood, the Dallas Morning News reports. Khalil Meek of the chapter's board of directors told a news conference,

We believe that these convictions indicate a growing disparity and climate of injustice for Muslims. … This is not justice. This growing trend of selective prosecution only furthers much of the community's view that this is nothing but a witch-hunt against the Muslim community.

 

He added portentously:

This is not justice. … The injustice waged against this family, by which over 20 children were robbed of their fathers for their crime of being Muslims in America, is only part of the tragedy we witnessed. The other victim in this ordeal is justice itself.

It would be too much, I guess, to ask CAIR to hang its head when one of its board members is convicted of breaking the law by trading with state-sponsors of terrorism. But then again, perhaps its reaction suggests CAIR does not consider sending seven illegal high-tech shipments to Libya and four to Syria such a bad thing.

July 27, 2004 update: Almost three years after the U.S. government closed down the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, it today indicted this largest of American Islamist "charity" organizations and charged seven of its officers, including Chairman Ghassan Elashi, with providing more than $12.4 million to individuals and organizations linked to Hamas from 1995 to 2001. Charges in the 42-count indictment include conspiracy, providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, tax evasion, and money laundering.

As usual when one of CAIR's own is indicted or convicted on a terrorism-related charge (Elashi was a founding board member of CAIR's Texas chapter), it stayed mum except to declare that it would "monitor" the indictments to make sure the seven "are granted all their legal rights." In a classic case of changing the subject, CAIR goes on to blame the indictment on "pro-Israel organizations and individuals" and to assert that the U.S. government "should not use evidence apparently tainted by foreign intelligence sources from a nation that has its own political agenda."

July 28, 2004 update: Newspapers have provided detailed coverage of the HLF indictment; perhaps the most complete is that provided by Toni Heinzl of the Dallas-Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Dec. 16, 2004 update: I mention a threatened lawsuit by CAIR against the Cornell Daily Sun in an update today at "CAIR's Growing Litigiousness." It bears noting that the article that CAIR is complaining about, written by Sara Townsley, states that "five of its leaders have been deported, indicted, or convicted on terrorism charges." Townsley does not list those five, but five is the same number I list in my April 29, 2004 update of this entry, where I noted that the fifth of them, Rabih Haddad, "may be" associated with CAIR. My evidence at the time was not strong enough to assert the connection.

Now it is. In his Oct. 19, 2004, response to Townsley's listing, CAIR national legal director, Arsalan T. Iftikhar, on his own brings up Rabih Haddad's name and asserts defensively that Haddad "was deported on immigration, not terrorism charges" – thereby inadvertently confirming that Haddad was indeed associated to CAIR.

Dec. 30, 2004 update: CAIR is a defendant in an amended filing of a 9/11 class action lawsut. I provide details, draw some implications, and note CAIR's legal troubles ahead due to Anti-CAIR's counter suit at "CAIR Named as a Defendant in 9/11 Terror Lawsuit."

Feb. 7, 2005 update: In an important investigative report, Todd Bensman and Robert Riggs of CBS-Channel 11 News in Dallas find that three Elashi brothers (Ghassan, Basman, and Bayan) are more implicated in Islamist terrorism than had hitherto been known. They are closely associated with the directors and employees of a monthly internet publication, Alsunnah magazine, published by the Birmingham, England-based Centre for Islamic Studies. Alsunnah (properly transliterated As-Sunna, meaning the Way of the Prophet) is notorious for encouraging suicide attacks on American, British, and other coalition troops in Iraq, as well as attacks on Israelis. The magazine also calls for violent jihad to create a universal Islamic state. The magazine called for the overthrow of the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, and so was banned there.

Since 2002, Alsunnah's web site has been hosted by a Richardson, Texas-based internet service company, Synaptix Corp., and Bayan Elashi is the journal's primary administrative contact. Synaptix' local directors are either close relatives or former employees of the Elashi triad, including their mother, Fadwa Elafranji, and Ghassan's wife, Majida Salem. Synaptix's articles of incorporation list John M. Janney, the man who stole www.DanielPipes.com from me during 2000 (for that story, see "About www.danielpipes.org"), as a director.

Channel 11 quotes Sajjan Gohel, of the London-based Asia-Pacific Foundation, about Alsunnah. "Its openly aggressive attitude towards Israel has encouraged British Muslims, British Pakistanis, to go off to far away lands to carry out activities of militancy." In early 2003, Israeli military forces seized stacks of leaflets on the West Bank produced by the centre that called on shahids to kill Americans in Iraq and solicited funds for a bank account connected to the centre. Gohel specifically notes that Asif Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, two Birmingham-area suicide bombers who attacked Mike's Place in Tel Aviv in April 2003, leaving three dead and 50 wounded, are believed to have read Alsunnah.

Comment: With focused, specific research like this, CAIR's links to the very most radical of Islamist movements are coming to light.

Feb. 7, 2005 update: CAIR is in total denial about Royer. Here is an exchange this evening on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes with Ahmed Bedier of CAIR's Florida office:

SEAN HANNITY: Did you not have a spokesman for your group at one time, a guy by the name of Royer that was on your staff that was convicted?

AHMED BEDIER: I think several years ago we had that individual in our group. And if you're inciting that somehow we're responsible for the actions or behavior of the individuals after they left our organization, that would be similar to somebody that worked for FOX five years ago and then commits a crime and FOX would be responsible for it.

April 4, 2005 update: At the first day's trial of Ali al-Timimi, 41, who the U.S. government accuses of urging Muslims to move to Afghanistan to help defend the Taliban agains American forces, finds al-Timimi's lead defense lawyer, Edward MacMahon, shifting the blame to Randall Royer. As reported by AP's Matthew Barakat, here is what happened:

MacMahon said the real villain in the case is Randall Royer, a convert to Islam and a Muslim activist who had fought in Bosnia and trained with Lashkar-e-Taiba. Royer, a St. Louis native, was at the Sept. 16, 2001 meeting and had a long history of encouraging fellow Muslims to train with Lashkar, which the United States designated a terrorist entity in December 2001.

April 13, 2005 update: More legal woes for Ghassan Elashi (a founding board member of CAIR's Texas chapter). To refresh the memory: Ghassan and four of his brothers were convicted on July 7, 2004 of supporting terrorism by sending seven high-tech shipments to Libya and four to Syria (the five still await sentencing). And today, Ghassan and two brothers were convicted of supporting terrorism by sending money to Mousa Abu Marzook, one of the leaders of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group. Ghassan and one brother (Bayan) were found guilty of all 21 counts they faced, including conspiracy, money laundering and dealing in property of a terrorist. Another brother (Basman) was convicted of three counts of conspiracy and acquitted of other charges. The brothers are free pending their sentencing, which is scheduled for Aug. 1. Each count carries a maximum of 10 years in jail.

Ghassan Elashi left the courtroom without comment. CAIR also kept its silence. And so did the mainstream media; although it widely carried the news of the Elashis' conviction, to the best of my knowledge not one old news source indicated the CAIR connection.

April 26, 2005 update: For completeness' sake, let it be known that Ali al-Timimi, 41, a Ph.D. in computational biology and a self-professed Islamic scholar whom prosecutors described as enjoying "rock star" status among his followers in Virginia, was convicted today on all ten counts against him, including soliciting others to levy war against the United States and inducing others to use firearms in violation of federal law. The firearms convictions require mandatory life imprisonment without parole. Al-Timimi became the tenth member of the "Virginia jihad network" to be convicted; two were acquitted.

Aug. 13, 2005 update: In a rare response to my stating that "five persons associated with CAIR have been convicted, listed as an unindicted co-conspirator, or deported on terrorism-related charges," the CAIR rep in Sacramento, Basim Elkarra, replied, as paraphrased by Andrew Adams of the Lodi News-Sentinel: "a few members of CAIR may have been convicted for terrorist connections, but with more than 100,000 members, it's hardly fair or accurate to try and create terror links for the whole group based on just a few people." Elkarra is then quoted: "We can't take account for every single member."

Comment: Do I really need to point out that I am discussing not members but employees and board members?

Aug. 15, 2005 update: A sixth CAIR person connected to terrorism? That is the claim filed by the plaintiffs in Estate of John P. O'Neill, Sr., et al. v. Al Baraka, et al. today in their "Amended RICO Statement Applicable to Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and CAIR-Canada." On p. 15, it names Mohammad Nimer as one of CAIR's "proven links to Islamic Terrorists." He works as the director of CAIR's Research Center and "also served as a member of the Board of Directors of the United Association for Studies and Research ('UASR'). The UASR is the strategic arm of Hamas in the United States."

Dec. 23, 2005 update: Elkarra dealt with the connections to terrorism one way and now Ibrahim Hooper, one of CAIR's central figures, deals with it in his own inimitable style. Here is an excerpt from a just-published article about me in Philadelphia magazine, January 2007 issue:

Pipes has long accused [CAIR] of being on the wrong side in the war on terror, a charge that CAIR's Hooper says is based entirely on innuendo and guilt by association – "on what my Great Aunt Tilly did in 1902."

Comment: I wonder how much longer CAIR's poobahs can blow off this problem with distortion and sarcasm, and when they will have to deal with it seriously.

Dec. 29, 2005 update: Nihad Awad found another, more aggressive way to respond to the terrorism-connection charges:

Nihad Awad, CAIR's top Washington official, vigorously denied the charges that CAIR has any links to terror groups and said the allegations are based on a "deliberate smear campaign" by individuals who cannot brook any criticism of the Israeli government. "We feel that the same crowd who is pushing these smears against CAIR is the same crowd as the neocons that pushed us into the Iraq war," he says. "They are trying to smear the Muslim community and they are trying to silence its voice. This takes us back to the McCarthy era."

 

* item

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations presents itself as just another civil-rights group. "We are similar to a Muslim NAACP," says spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. Its public language - about promoting "interest and understanding among the general public with regards to Islam and Muslims in North America" - certainly boosts an image of moderation.

That reputation has permitted CAIR to prosper since its founding in 1994, garnering sizeable donations, invitations to the White House, respectful media citations and a serious hearing by corporations.

In reality, CAIR is something quite different. For starters, it's on the wrong side in the war on terrorism. One indication came in October 1998, when the group demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," finding this depiction "offensive to Muslims."

The same year, CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the twin East African embassy bombings. As Hooper saw it, those explosions resulted from some vague "misunderstandings of both sides." (A New York court, however, blamed bin Laden's side alone for the embassy blasts.)

In 2001, CAIR denied his culpability for the Sept. 11 massacre, saying only that "if [note the "if"] Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name." (Only in December was CAIR finally embarrassed into acknowledging his role.)

Siraj Wahhaj, unindicted and on CAIR's advisory board.


CAIR consistently defends other militant Islamic terrorists too. The conviction of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing it deemed "a travesty of justice." The conviction of Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh who planned to blow up New York City landmarks, it called a "hate crime." The extradition order for suspected Hamas terrorist Mousa Abu Marook it labeled "anti-Islamic" and "anti-American."

Not surprisingly, CAIR also backs those who finance terrorism. When President Bush closed the Holy Land Foundation in December for collecting money he said was "used to support the Hamas terror organization," CAIR decried his action as "unjust" and "disturbing."

CAIR even includes at least one person associated with terrorism in its own ranks. On Feb. 2, 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named Siraj Wahhaj as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments. Yet CAIR deems him "one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America" and includes him on its advisory board.

For these and other reasons, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, Steven Pomerantz, concludes that "CAIR, its leaders and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups."

Nor is terrorism the only disturbing aspect of CAIR's record. Other problems include:

Intimidating moderate Muslims. In at least two cases (Hisham Kabbani and Khalid Durán), CAIR has defamed moderate Muslims who reject its extremist agenda, leading to death threats against them.

Embracing murderers. CAIR responded to the arrest and conviction of Jamil Al-Amin (the former H. Rap Brown) by praising him, raising funds for him and then denying his guilt after his conviction for the murder of an Atlanta policeman. Likewise with Ahmad Adnan Chaudhry of San Bernardino, Calif.: Disregarding his conviction for attempting murder, CAIR declared him "innocent" and set up a defense fund for him.

Promoting anti-Semitism. The head of CAIR's Los Angeles office, Hussam Ayloush, routinely uses the term "zionazi" when referring to Israelis. CAIR co-hosted an event in May 1998 at which an Egyptian militant Islamic leader, Wagdi Ghunaym, called Jews the "descendants of the apes."



Omar Ahmad, founding chairman of CAIR.


Aggressive ambitions. As reported by the San Ramon Valley Herald, CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

CAIR's real record is one of extremism. North American Muslims themselves are beginning to discover - and the government, leading media, churches, and businesses should follow - that CAIR represents not the noble civilization of Islam but an aggressive and radical strain similar to that which led to the suicide hijackings last September. CAIR must be shunned as a fringe group by responsible institutions and individuals throughout North America.

 

Apr. 22, 2002 update: For my "CAIR package" - continuously updated information on North America's leading Islamist organization - see "Getting to Know the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)." It currently has four parts:

1. A brief 2003 introduction to the topic, "CAIR: 'Moderate' friends of terror."
2. A long 2006 study, "CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment."
3. A bibliography of CAIR.
4. My reply to CAIR's attack me.

Dec. 11, 2006 update: Over four years later, the Omar Ahmad statement quoted above continues to make waves, as Ahmad denies having made it, the journalist who quoted him, Lisa Gardiner, sticks by her story, and other Muslim organization criticize CAIR for its attitude. Art Moore of World Net Daily reviews the situation today with a long account at "Did CAIR founder say Islam to rule America?"

In addition, I should belatedly like to acknowledge that the clipping from the San Ramon Valley Herald cited above and posted on my website - the basis for all subsequent discussion of the Ahmad quote - was made available to me in late 2001 by the Rev. Austin Miles of Oakley, California. He had noted it in 1998 and, knowing of my interest in CAIR, sent it to me to make use of.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You are simply beyond hope, you are as much of an extremist as any muslim I have ever met...I know not all jews are as extremist as you, there is hope, but like the extemists muslims, I simply hope your rants do not over power the moderates...good luck.

 

Reply to CAIR's Attack on Daniel Pipes

If you have landed on http://www.cair-net.org/misc/people/daniel_pipes.html, you have seen an attack on me posted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Here is my response to that attack. It has two parts, one an analysis of CAIR and the other a defense against its attacks on me.
What is the Council on American-Islamic Relations?

CAIR is particularly worrisome because it claims to be nothing but a mild public affairs organization promoting "interest and understanding among the general public with regards to Islam and Muslims in North America," and is widely seen as such. In fact, it is radical to the core; to quote its chairman, Omar M. Ahmad (as reported by the San Ramon Valley Herald in July 1998), "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

CAIR's record includes the following unpleasantries:

* Apologizing for killers such as Hamas (a group associated with the murder of 7 Americans) and Usama bin Ladin (charged with the devastation of September 11, 2001).
* Helping promote terrorism: In the words of Steve Pomerantz., a former Chief of Counterterrorism for the FBI, "CAIR, its leaders, and its activities, effectively give aid to international terrorist groups."
* Intimidation of patriotic Muslims who disagree with CAIR's militant agenda: In one case (Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani), the FBI has looked into charges that he received death threats after renouncing the chauvinists. In another (Khalid Durán), CAIR's attack on a writer led to a death edict against him - which CAIR has never denounced. (For details on this latter case, see http://www.danielpipes.org/article/384.)
* Associating with terrorism: Siraj Wahaj, a potential unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, sits on its advisory board.
* Bias against women: When a prosecutor in Cleveland argued that two Muslim men had engaged in the "honor killing" of their female cousin, CAIR accused him of "ethnic and religious stereotyping" and demanded he be investigated.
* Sponsorship of blatant antisemitism: At a May 1998 rally at Brooklyn College co-sponsored by CAIR, one speaker referred to Jews as "descendants of the apes."

In short, CAIR represents not the great civilization of Islam but a radical utopian movement originating in the Middle East that seeks to impose its ways on the United States. Americans should consider themselves warned: a new danger exists in their midst.

CAIR also has a history of vituperation and aggressiveness against anyone who opposes its Islamist vision for the United States. In my case, it has sent out nearly a hundred tirades impugning my reputation since July 1999. These have landed everywhere from the op-ed page of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune to the hands of street picketers in Washington, D.C. and Cornell University.
Defense of Daniel Pipes

Before getting into specifics, it is interesting to note that CAIR has, on at least two occasions, cited me as an authority on Islam and Muslims. Once, in a press release dated 17 March 1998, when it needed an authority to discuss a staff member of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, whom did it turn to? Me, citing me by name and quoting me. The second time, when CAIR listed the books it is sending to libraries (at http://www.cair-net.org/libraryproject/materials.asp), whose review in The Wall Street Journal of John L. Esposito's The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? did it quote? Mine.

In other words, for all its defamation of my character and knowledge, CAIR itself acknowledges my expertise.

In its attack on me, CAIR lists quotations by and about me going back to 1983, but it does so in so sly and selective a fashion that many things end up sounding like the opposite of what was intended.

I regret the complexity of what follows, but due to quotations within quotations, it requires careful reading.

The CAIR text which turns up at http://www.cair-net.org/misc/people/daniel_pipes.html is left-flush. [Square brackets] demarcate my commentaries within long quotes.

My commentary is indented. << and >> mark the beginning and end of long quotes by me.

UPDATES:

"The Palestinians are a miserable people...and they deserve to be." Daniel Pipes, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2001

I replied to this made-up quote in a letter to the editor published in the October 2001 issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs:

<<Your reporter, Elaine Kelley, has it wrong in her report in your July 2001 issue on my talk at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon on April 19, 2001.

I never said anything along the lines of "The Palestinians are a miserable people …and they deserve to be."

That's not how I think, speak, or write. Here is what I wrote in an article just prior to that talk (The Left's ongoing Oslo delusion," The Jerusalem Post, April 25, 2001), which accurately reflects my thinking, both in April and now:

"If Israel truly wants to end its problem with the Palestinians, it must adopt the opposite approach: convince Palestinians not of its niceness but its toughness. This means not replanting Arab olive trees but punishing violence so hard that its enemies will eventually feel so deep a sense of futility that they will despair of further conflict.

"A historical analogy comes to mind: when World War I ended, German armies remained intact and their capital city unoccupied. Not convinced they had really lost the war, Germans harbored a deep discontent that led to the rise of Hitler. In contrast, Germans emerged from World War II utterly defeated and without any illusions to confuse them. This time, understanding the need for a fresh start, they turned to Konrad Adenauer and built a peaceful, successful country.

"The Palestinian Authority is hardly Germany, but the analogy does hold: Palestinians will not give up on their aggressive ambitions vis-à-vis Israel until fully convinced that these cannot succeed. Only then can they build a polity and an economy commensurate with their dignity and talent. Ironically, then, Palestinians need almost as much to be defeated by Israel as Israel needs to defeat them.

"It's time for the [Israeli] Left to recognize the vastness of its error in the Oslo process and adopt the tough-minded policies that will finally liberate Israelis and Palestinians from their mutual conflict."

In brief, far from thinking the Palestinians a miserable people, I call attention to their dignity and talent, then propose how to liberate them from their demons so they can build a civil society and decent lives.

Daniel Pipes, via e-mail>>

POLICE, MUSLIMS REFUTE HERNDON LINK TO TERRORISM, By Jeannie Baumann, Herndon (Va.) Observer, 6/15/2001

The Herndon police chief has refuted a statement in a Wall Street Journal editorial [by Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes] that identified Herndon as the location of an organized terrorist cell connected to international terrorist Osama bin Laden...

...Herndon Police Chief Toussaint E. Summers Jr. said the police department contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation after the editorial appeared to verify the citing, and he said the bureau has no evidence of any al-Qaeda activity in the town.

"All we did was try to verify the information in the article, and there appears to be no truth to it at all..."

I replied to this article in the Herndon Observer at length in Bin Laden and Herndon, Virginia, The Jerusalem Post, 20 June 2001.

Since September 2001, much more has come to light about Herndon and Tarik Hamdi, the person I focused on in that town. John Mintz and Tom Jackman, Finances Prompted Raids on Muslims, The Washington Post, 24 March 2002, explain that when Federal agents searched 16 Muslim homes and offices in Northern Virginia on 20 March 2002, "At the center of the federal investigation is a cluster of companies and charities based in Herndon."

Likewise, Judith Miller, "Raids Seek Evidence of Money-Laundering," The New York Times, 21 March 2002, notes that Federal agents specifically raided Tarik Hamdi's house.

That CAIR continues to post an ignorant and unreliable snippet from the Herndon Observer only serves to make CAIR itself look ignorant and unreliable.

WHO IS DANIEL PIPES?

Throughout his career, Daniel Pipes has exhibited a troubling bigotry toward Muslims and Islam. As early as 1983, even an otherwise positive Washington Post book review noted that Pipes displays "a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims...he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them." Pipes, said the reviewer, "is swayed by the writings of anti-Muslim writers...[the book] is marred by exaggerations, inconsistencies, and evidence of hostility to the subject." (The Washington Post, 12/11/83)

Yes, Thomas Lippman did write the above, but within an extremely positive context that CAIR does not provide:

<< As the Islamic revolution approached its climax five years ago, many Western journalists in Tehran, including myself, wasted hours interviewing the wrong people [meaning the Westernized elite]. … Perhaps we would have better understood what was happening if we had access to Daniel Pipes' remarkable book, In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power.

Pipes has taken on, and very nearly accomplished, a daunting task: to explain the political and social development of the Muslim peoples from their origins to the present …. Pipes, a lecturer in history at Harvard, has produced a brilliant, authoritative, but occasionally infuriating and inconsistent work which demonstrates encyclopedic knowledge of Muslim intellectual history and a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims. … Here he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them. He sometimes misstates conditions in Muslim countries, and is swayed by writings of anti-Muslim commentators less judicious than himself. But on balance these unfortunate lapses do not diminish the perceptiveness of his analysis. …

Few other writers have explained so lucidly such complex developments in Muslim history as [a long list of phenomena] …. These points are forcefully presented and cogently argued. The book is a valuable contribution to our understanding. This makes it all the more unfortunate that it is marred by exaggeration, inconsistencies, and evidence of hostility to the subject. [Lippman then lists some of these and concludes:]

A more perceptive editor might have counseled Pipes to purge these and similar passages. Without them, the book would be the definitive work of its kind." >>

CAIR's modus operandi includes name-calling and the indiscriminate spewing of anything negative it can find about those it disagrees with, no matter how irrelevant or inaccurate. This is a first example; many other follow.

In The Weekly Standard (1/22/96), Pipes offered a glowing review of the infamous anti-Muslim book "Why I Am Not a Muslim." The National Catholic Reporter (11/17/95) called that book "the literary equivalent of hate radio...literary warfare against Islam," useful only to those "interested in returning to the polemical past to do battle with Islamic believers." Pipes called the book "quite brilliant" and "startlingly novel." "This religion would seem to have nothing functional to offer," remarked Pipes.

This is a perfect illustration of CAIR's deceptiveness. Here is the above quote from the National Catholic Reporter review in context:

"On the one hand, some might call Ibn Warraq's book Why I Am Not a Muslim the literary equivalent of hate radio. On the other hand, some might make the case that Warraq's book on Islam is a courageous and prophetic call to value and protect human rights, especially the rights of women. Warraq's treatment of contemporary violations of women's human rights, often stemming from the effects of Islamic law, can be rightly regarded as a passionate and prophetic cry for justice."

CAIR's distorted quotation of this review is typical of its dishonesty.

It also bears noting that the National Catholic Reporter and I were hardly alone in hailing Why I Am Not a Muslim as a major study. Free Inquiry called it "courageous" and The Salisbury Review praised it as "invaluable." Among leading scholars of Islam, Maxime Rodinson called it "very learned" and Bernard Lewis said it is "important"

Further, the assumption behind CAIR's attack - that a reviewer of Why I Am Not a Muslim (written under pseudonym, incidentally, because the author rightly feared for his life if he went public with his identity) be expected to condemn it due to its contents - is extraordinary. It implies that we have reached the point that everything Islamic must be praised and everything skeptical of Islam must be condemned. What is this anyway, Saudi Arabia?

As for the phrase, "This religion would seem to have nothing functional to offer," it was not a statement of my beliefs but the introduction to a quote from the book itself, and the word "seem" was my way of distancing myself from the assertion that followed:

<< Turning to the present, Ibn Warraq argues that Muslims have experienced great travails trying to modernize because Islam stands fore-square in their way. Its regressive orientation makes change difficult: "All innovations are discouraged in Islam-every problem is seen as a religious problem rather than a social or economic one." This religion would seem to have nothing functional to offer. "Islam, in particular political Islam, has totally failed to cope with the modern world and all its attendant problems-social, economic, and philosophical." >>

(For the full review, see http://www.danielpipes.org/article/893.)

 

Recently, Pipes questioned the origins of the Quran, Islam's revealed text, and questioned whether the Prophet Muhammad ever existed.

I wrote a column about a book edited by Ibn Warraq, The Quest for the Historical Muhammad (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2000). That book - not me - raises profound questions about the origins of Islam. (For the column, see http://www.danielpipes.org/article/333.) Have we reached the point in the United States where open discussion of scholarly analysis is now forbidden if it pertains to Islam?

He wrote: "The Koran is a not 'a product of Muhammad or even of Arabia,' but a collection of earlier Judeo-Christian liturgical materials stitched together to meet the needs of a later age...A few scholars go even further, doubting even the existence of Muhammad." (The Jerusalem Post, 5/12/2000)

As the quotation marks within the quote suggest, I am not speaking in my own voice but quoting contributors to The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. The citation about not 'a product of Muhammad or even of Arabia,' is on p. 495 of that book. More slippery, inaccurate, and dishonest quoting by CAIR.

According to Pipes, the night journey of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem referred to in the Quran (17:1) never occurred. This event, known as "al-Isra wa al-Miraj," is marked each year by millions of Muslims worldwide. In the Los Angeles Times, Pipes wrote: "The Prophet Mohammed never went to the city, nor did he have ties to it." (7/21/2000)

CAIR is inadvertently flaunting its ignorance of Islam here. First, the Qur'an verse 17:1 does not mention Jerusalem and there is a long debate where exactly the "further mosque" of that verse is located. There are many reasons to think the reference was not to Jerusalem. (For a brief discussion of this matter, see "If I Forget Thee: Does Jerusalem Really Matter to Islam?" The New Republic, April 28, 1997, at http://www.danielpipes.org/article/281.)

Second, the Prophet Muhammad's night journey is traditionally understood by Muslims to be allegorical - not a historical event. In the huge body of biographical information about the Prophet, there is no mention of his having traveled to Jerusalem.

Pipes also displays a racist's distaste for Muslim immigrants who "wish to import the customs of the Middle East and South Asia." (Los Angeles Times, 7/22/99) For Pipes, this sort of raw bigotry is nothing new.

Let the reader judge this phrase - but in context. I argue that there are two sorts of Muslim immigrants in the United States: "integrationists are delighted to live in a democratic country where the rule of law prevails, whereas chauvinists wish to import the customs of the Middle East and South Asia." Sound racist to you? (For the full column, see http://www.danielpipes.org/article/313.)

In 1990, he said: “Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.” (National Review, 11/19/90)

This sentence has over the years attracted considerable attention. My goal in this article (available at http://www.danielpipes.org/article/198) was to characterize the thinking of Western Europeans, not give my own views. In retrospect, I should either have put the words “brown-skinned peoples” and “strange foods” in quotation marks or made it clearer that I was explaining European attitudes rather than my own. By way of example of those attitudes, here are some quotations from top French politicians from that era.

Jacques Chirac, then president of RPR (Republican Party) and mayor of Paris, July 1983: “Le seuil de tolérance [de l’immigration] est dépassé dans certains quartiers et cela risque de provoquer des réactions de racisme.”

François Mitterrand, president of France, December 12, 1989: “Le seuil de tolérance [de l’immigration] a été atteint dès les années 70 où il y avait déjà 4,1 à 4,2 millions d’étrangers. ... Autant que possible, il ne faut pas dépasser ce chiffre, mais on s’y tient depuis des années et des années.”

Jacques Chirac, June 19, 1991: “Notre problème, ce n’est pas les étrangers, c’est qu’il y a overdose. C’est peut-être vrai qu’il n’y a pas plus d’étrangers qu’avant la guerre, mais ce n’est pas les mêmes et ça fait une différence. Il est certain que d’avoir des Espagnols, des Polonais et des Portugais travaillant chez nous, ça pose moins de problèmes que d’avoir des musulmans et des Noirs [...] Comment voulez-vous que le travailleur français qui travaille avec sa femme et qui, ensemble, gagnent environ 15000 francs, et qui voit sur le palier à côté de son HLM, entassée, une famille avec un père de famille, trois ou quatre épouses, et une vingtaine de gosses, et qui gagne 50000 francs de prestations sociales, sans naturellement travailler... si vous ajoutez le bruit et l’odeur, hé bien le travailleur français sur le palier devient fou. Et ce n’est pas être raciste que de dire cela.”

Translated into English: “Our problem is not foreigners, it’s that there is an overdose. It may be true that there are not more foreigners [now] than before the [Second World] War, but they are not the same ones, and that makes a difference. It is certain that having Spanish, Polish, and Portuguese working here with us creates fewer problems than having Muslims and Blacks. ... How do you want the French worker, who along with his wife earns altogether about 15,000 francs [a month], and who sees across the landing a family with a father, his three-four wives, and twenty or so kids, and which receives 50,000 francs from welfare, of course without working. … If you add to this the noise and smell, well the French worker goes crazy. And it is not racist to say this.”

Valery Giscard d’Estaing, former president of France, September 21, 1991: “Bien que dans cette matière sensible il faille manipuler les mots avec précaution, en raison de la charge émotionnelle ou historique qu’ils portent, le type de problème auquel nous aurons à faire face se déplace de celui de l’immigration vers celui de l’invasion.”

More quotations can be found at http://lmsi.net/article.php3?id_article=81 and http://wwwassos.utc.fr/~plaider/calimero/22/mots_a_maux.html

It is illustrative that CAIR ignores the last sentence of the paragraph is quotes here – the summary and most important sentence of this whole two-paragraph section.

<<Fears of a Muslim influx have more substance than the worry about jihad. Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene. Muslim immigrants bring with them a chauvinism that augurs badly for their integration into the mainstream of the European societies. The signs all point to continued clashes between the two sides; in all likelihood, the Rushdie affair was merely a prelude to further troubles; already it has spawned a Muslim political party in Great Britain. Put differently, Iranian zealots threaten more within the gates of Vienna than outside them.
Still, none of this amounts to Richard Condon’s notion of “another terrible threat” in any way resembling the Soviet danger. Muslim immigrants will probably not change the face of European life: pubs will not close down, secularist principles will not wither, freedom of speech is not likely to be abrogated. The movement of Muslims to Western Europe creates a great number of painful but finite challenges; there is no reason, however, to see this event leading to a cataclysmic battle between two civilizations. If handled properly, the immigrants can even bring much of value, including new energy, to their host societies.>>

CAIR does not want to show how my writings are often favorable to Muslims, as any fair-minded reader can see by reading the rest of the paragraph.

In a review of a book that called for dialogue with the Muslim world, Pipes objected to the fact that the author: "...fails to...consider the implications of growing Muslim populations in the West. [The book], in other words, provides little guidance to the Islamic threat." (Wall Street Journal, 10/30/92)

The book here, by John Esposito, is called The Islamic Threat. CAIR quotes the final sentence of the review (for the full text, see http://www.danielpipes.org/article/882) but leaves out the context and the fact that I am playing with the book title:

<< Mr. Esposito offers an informed and reasoned discussion of Islam in politics. But he fails to recognize the hostility and ambition of radical fundamentalists and to consider the implications of growing Muslim populations in the West. The Islamic Threat, in other words, provides little guidance to the Islamic threat. >>

On a radical pro-Israel web site, Pipes claims that "as the population of Muslims in the United States grows, so does antisemitism." (The New Anti-Semitism)

Typical of CAIR's carelessness, if not dishonesty, it fails to note that this article was written by me for the Jewish Exponent of Philadelphia and published there on October 16, 1997 - even though this is indicated clearly on the above-cited website. Second, the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies reprinted my article without asking my permission - and CAIR did not check with me to find this out but simply makes assumptions that I chose to publish there. Third, the Freeman Center, whose mission is "to aid Israel in her quest to survive in a hostile world," is a perfectly respectable institution, not "radical" except in CAIR's fevered view.

As for the substance of my remark, it is unfortunately true that more Muslims in the United States means more antisemitism - and I stand by that statement. Would anyone argue the reverse - that an increase in the Muslim population of the United States leads to a diminishment of antisemitism? Or even that it has no effect?

It bears noting in this context that CAIR is a foremost sponsor of antisemitism. To cite one example of many, on April 2, 2000, its New York chapter hosted a lecture by Yusuf Islam (the former pop singer who went by the name Cat Stevens). Here is a typical statement by Mr. Islam on the subject of Jews: "The Jews seem neither to respect God nor His Creation. Their own holy books contain the curse of God brought upon them by their prophets on account of their disobedience to Him and mischief in the earth. We have seen the disrespect for religion displayed by those who consider themselves to be 'God's chosen people.'" Yusuf Islam, Eyewitness (Tucson: Islamic Association of Palestine, 1988).

CAIR also cosponsored a rally at Brooklyn College at which Jews were described as "pigs and monkeys" (The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2000)

He does not limit this claim to Arab Muslims alone. Pipes wrote that "Iranians and Pakistanis, to take two groups of non-Arabs, are at least as widely conspiracy-minded and as anti-Semitic as, say, Tunisians and Kuwaitis." (Commentary, 9/1/99)

Happens to be so, unfortunately. All I am doing is pointing out a truth.

Of African-American Muslims, Pipes wrote: "...black converts tend to hold vehemently anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic attitudes." (Commentary, 6/1/2000)

Some proof is needed? Louis Farrakhan, perhaps the leading antisemite in the United States, has called Judaism a "gutter religion" (The New York Times, June 29, 1984) and described Adolf Hitler as a "very great man" (radio broadcast, March 11, 1984). In an infamous speech at Kean College in November 1993, Farrakhan's deputy spewed out a mind-boggling series of statements about Jews. The Nation of Islam sells the Protocols of the Elders of Zion at its events. And the organization has even done original "scholarship" of its own, putting together a volume in 1991 called The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews that purports to show that Jews were primarily responsible for the enslavement of blacks and their transport to America. And so on and on.

In an editorial in Canada's National Post, Pipes implied that the Canadian Muslim community could pose a threat to that country. He wrote: "Following Marxism, Leninism and Fascism comes Islamism...Islamism is a...phenomenon that has the power to do mischief...right here in Canada." (8/7/99)

Islamism sure can do mischief in Canada. But note again the tricky change in wording: I wrote about Islamism, CAIR turns this into a statement about "the Canadian Muslim community."

This is the same "expert" who claims Muslims have no real religious attachments to the city of Jerusalem

Yes, I reviewed 1,400 years of history in If I Forget Thee: Does Jerusalem Really Matter to Islam?, The New Republic, April 28, 1997 and concluded that Muslims do not have a deep religious attachment to the city. Here is an excerpt:

<< Jerusalem is not the place to which Muslims pray. It is not directly connected to any events in Muhammad's life. And it is not even mentioned by name in the Koran. The city never became a cultural center or served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state. Jerusalem has mattered to Muslims only intermittently over the past thirteen centuries, and when it has mattered, as it does today, it has been because of politics.

… the fact that politics has so long fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem has two implications. First, it points to the relative weakness of the Islamic connection to the city, one that arises as much from mundane need as from the immutable claims of faith. Second, it suggests that the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else. Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims. >>

and who recently argued that American Muslims pose a threat to the Jewish community. (If I Forget Thee: Does Jerusalem Really Matter to Islam?, The New Republic, 4/28/1997, and America's Muslims against America's Jews, Commentary, 5/01/1999)

No, I did not argue that "American Muslims pose a threat to the Jewish community" in the second of these pieces (available at http://www.danielpipes.org/article/308) but that Islamists and the Nation of Islam pose a threat to Jews. After giving examples of Islamist and Nation of Islam actions and speech, I wrote this careful distinction:

<< It is a fortunate fact that such Muslims do not represent all Muslims in the United States. Some, indeed, resist, whether actively or passively, the demonization of Jews. [followed by some examples] A few brave souls-most notably W. Deen Mohammed, the leading figure among black converts to mainstream Islam-have also stood up against Muslims who attack Jews. [then I conclude this positive appreciation:] But, in truth, these positive attitudes are very much the exception. [and go on to explain the Islamist and NoI activities] >>

 

In response to a suggestion that American Muslim voter registration drives are a positive development, Pipes wrote: "I fail to see how conducting voter registration drives implies the Islamists are not 'bad.' The CPUSA [Communist Party USA] also staged registration drives, and for similar reasons." (MSANEWS, 8/18/99)

Good analogy, actually, and I stand by it.

Following the arrest of two Arab graduate students on a flight bound for Washington, D.C., (the airline later apologized for the incident) Pipes supported the practice of religious and ethnic profiling.

According to the Baltimore Sun: "'It seems well worth it in order to keep would-be terrorists off guard,' said Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a think tank. He defended the close monitoring of Arab passengers, arguing that 'the record shows over the last generation that the great acts of violence are coming from the Middle East...'" (The Baltimore Sun, 11/24/1999, Page 1A)

Poor CAIR! This is one argument it now must regret arguing with me about. Had religious and ethnic profiling been in place on September 11, it is very unlikely that 19 Arabic-speaking Muslims would have made it on board with their box-cutters.

More broadly, as a passenger on an airplane, don't you want law enforcement to use whatever statistical methods it has to figure out who is most likely to make trouble aboard? If last-minute ticket purchasers who use cash fit the category, should they not be scrutinized more than others? The same logic applies to 20-year-olds and men; regrettably, it also applies to Middle Easterners and to Muslims.

Noted scholar and author Edward Said, whose works include "Covering Islam" and "Orientalism," wrote that Pipes is one of a group of anti-Muslim pundits who seek to "make sure that the '[Islamic] threat' is kept before our eyes, the better to excoriate Islam for terror, despotism and violence, while assuring themselves profitable consultancies, frequent TV appearances and book contracts." (The Nation, 8/12/1996)

The same Edward Said who told a Kuwaiti newspaper some years ago that "the Israeli and U.S. Governments are our enemies" (Al-Qabas, Oct. 7, 1989); he is someone whose judgment we are to respect? And he, the guru of Middle Eastern studies, the president of the Modern Language Association, the celebrity intellectual of Columbia University, and the darling of post-modernists, accuses me of having fashionable politics?

A former director of Harvard's Center for Middle Eastern Studies (and one of Pipes' instructors) had this to say:

"...to speak for myself, I have been appalled frequently by his [Pipes] polemical stance on almost everything having to do with Islam, Muslims, or the Palestinian/Israeli issue...

"...The irony in [an article written by Pipes] is of course that Dr. Pipes and other radically and blindly pro-Zionist American Jews are much farther along the chauvinist and ultimately anti-American spectrum than are even radical American Muslims.

"Yet Dr. Pipes, despite his own apparently strong, even blind, support for the Israeli state and its policies-even those policies that are attacked by thoughtful Israelis themselves as racist and oppressive-sees no incongruity in his condemnation of many Muslim Americans as a threat to the American state and democracy..." (Posted on Arabic-Info, PNET and Arab Nationalist lists, 9/10/99)

It would be nice if CAIR could get its facts right. In 1999, it sent out a notice titled "More on Daniel Pipes From His Former Arabic Instructor at Harvard," then proceeded with the above quotes from William A. Graham of Harvard University. Trouble is, I never studied Arabic at Harvard with Professor Graham. For the record, Wilson Bishai and Annemarie Schimmel were my Arabic teachers.

I sent a public notice out to this effect immediately after CAIR's mailing, correcting the record. Yet CAIR persists in repeating its mistake. How can one believe anything CAIR says when it knowingly distorts facts in this way?

One of the anti-Muslim pundits supported by Pipes is Steven Emerson. Emerson is best known for his 1994 PBS production "Jihad in America." Muslims say he has a long history of defamatory and inaccurate attacks on the Islamic community in this country.

Emerson was the "journalist" who fueled anti-Islamic hysteria by blaming Muslims for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. He also said Muslims were responsible for the downing of TWA Flight 800 in 1996.

Emerson's organization, the Investigative Project, is a spin-off of Pipes Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum (MEF). In an investigative report by iViews.com, Emerson confirmed that MEF funded his activities in the past and said: "Clearly I had a very close relationship with them (MEF) and I continue to have a very close relationship."

Emerson is currently involved in a multi-million-dollar defamation lawsuit against a Florida newspaper, its senior editor, and a former investigative reporter for The Associated Press (AP).

The complaint centers on allegations published by the newspaper that two AP reporters said Emerson gave them a document on terrorism supposedly from FBI files. The reporters said the document was actually authored by Emerson. The lawsuit also disputes allegations that Emerson gave false information to a Senate subcommittee during testimony in 1998.

He has recently been forced to retract accusations he made last year about a former journalism lecturer at California State University in Hayward, Ca.

Of Emerson, Pipes says: "I am proud to work with him." (MSANEWS, 9/2/99)

I am indeed proud to work with Steven Emerson, a brave investigative journalist with a distinguished career at U.S. News & World Report, CNN, and other news organizations, plus a winner of the Polk Prize. He has paid a particularly heavy price for his pathbreaking work on American Islamists; because of their threats against his life, he has had to go into hiding and now lives underground. (For details on his predicament, see http://www.danielpipes.org/article/321.)

It took a while for the country as a whole to appreciate Mr. Emerson as much as I have, but the September 11 atrocities carried out by militant Islamic operatives quickly found his understanding of events a very wide and very appreciative audience.

Pipes also seeks to silence those who oppose his one-sided view of Islam. In 1996, he attacked the Council on Foreign Relations for publishing a newsletter that he accused of "giving voice to Muslim fundamentalists." ("Fundamentalist Flap Roiling Council on Foreign Relations," Forward, 5/10/1996)

I don't seek to silence anyone. I was perturbed that the Council on Foreign Relations had sponsored a publication, the Islamic Politics Report, that was effectively apologizing for Islamism. As a member of the Council and a supporter of it financially, I felt completely within my rights, indeed, I felt a responsibility, to bring the nature of the Islamic Politics Report the attention of the Council leadership. The Council's president, I am pleased to note, completely agreed with me (repeatedly calling the Report "a piece of junk") and quickly shut down this forgotten and unlamented publication.

American Muslims recall Mr. Pipes finger-pointing following the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. (Pipes now admits that he was wrong on this point.) As The Village Voice noted: "Leaping directly into hysteria was the right-wing Daniel Pipes...who told USA Today...'People need to understand that this is just the beginning. The fundamentalists are on the upsurge, and they make it very clear that they are targeting us. They are absolutely obsessed with us.'" (5/2/95)

In my statement to USA Today on the day of the blast, I said that the West is "under attack," and went on: "People need to understand that this is just the beginning. The fundamentalists are on the upsurge, and they make it very clear that they are targeting us. They are absolutely obsessed with us." I have three comments on this statement:

(1) It was the FBI, not I, which informed the public that Middle Easterners were the primary suspects behind the Oklahoma City bombing.

(2) In saying that "this is just the beginning," I was referring to assaults by Islamists against Western interests going back to about 1983-the bombings in Beirut and Kuwait, the killing of Americans on airplanes, the World Trade Center explosion of 1993. As a prediction made in 1995, moreover, the statement looks pretty good these many years later, after U.S. embassies have been blown up in Tanzania and Kenya, the U.S.S. Cole has been attacked, and nearly three thousand Americans lost their lives on September 11.

(3) I learned my lesson not to comment on speculations and have not done so since.

Given this history of hostility toward Muslims in general and to the American Muslim community in particular, it is not surprising that Pipes paints a black and white image of good "integrationist" or "traditional" Muslims who love mom and apple pie versus bad Muslim "chauvinists" and "Islamists." This distinction without a difference is merely a smoke-screen for attacks on any Muslim who would defend Islam.

Actually, it is "surprising": were I hostile to Islam, as CAIR alleges, I would not paint a "black-and-white image" of good and bad Muslims. I would paint a black and black image of only bad Muslims. The fact that I differentiate between Muslims, looking at their politics rather than their religion, goes back to my main point, the one CAIR wants to obfuscate: I oppose the Islamist program because I consider it an ugly totalitarianism. Plenty of pious Muslims agree with me on this point. Perhaps the most notable is Fethullah Gülen of Turkey; within the United States, the best known is Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi sheikh. Even more secular Muslims - Salman Rushdie comes to mind - concur.

In his writings to date, Pipes has never offered objective criteria that would distinguish between "integrationist" and "chauvinists."

I have used these terms exactly once (Los Angeles Times, July 22, 1999), where I clearly defined them. (For the full article, see http://www.danielpipes.org/article/313.)

His definition of "chauvinist" must be fairly broad. In his National Post article, Pipes wrote: "The Internet boasts hundreds of Islamist [chauvinist] sites; I doubt whether there is a single one that is traditional [integrationist] Muslim." (8/7/99)

I wish my definition were broad; sadly, this domination of the Internet is a symptom of the Islamist domination of Muslim life in the West. Now, however, there are some traditionalist sites, including http://shell.spqr.net/islam/, http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/, and http://www.aicp.org/.

Pipes obviously hopes to convince people of other faiths that the bad American Muslims are in the majority since he claims they "run most of the Muslim institutions in the United States." (Los Angeles Times, "It Matters What Kind of Islam Prevails," 7/22/99)

I am hardly the only one to note how the Islamists dominate Muslim institutions. Speaking at the Department of State, Muhammad Hisham Kabbani estimated that they dominate 80 percent of the Islamic institutions in this country. (For his statement and the intense controversy that followed, see http://www.sunnah.org/events/statedept/unveiling_the_controversy.htm.) I wish I could report that patriotic, non-totalitarian Muslims run the key organizations.

The kind of agenda-driven polemic offered by Pipes only serves to fan the flames of ignorance and prejudice. But perhaps that is his intent.

No, as is clear to anyone who reads my work, is to help Americans understand the complexities of the Middle East and Islam. Distinguishing between traditional Islam and militant Islam is one of my main subjects due to its importance. (For more on my background and goals, see http://www.danielpipes.org/article/351.)

I suggest that the aggressive, slightly hysterical, and untrustworthy analysis that is CAIR's hallmark is what fans the flames of ignorance.