It is good that CAIR has renounced the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France. But can we really trust what CAIR is saying? Does its past track record match its present posture?
Foremost on Katie Halper’s list of “46 examples of Muslim outrage about Paris shooting that Fox News can’t seem to find” was CAIR’s clear and categorical statement, denouncing the violence:
“We strongly condemn this brutal and cowardly attack and reiterate our repudiation of any such assault on freedom of speech, even speech that mocks faiths and religious figures. The proper response to such attacks on the freedoms we hold dear is not to vilify any faith, but instead to marginalize extremists of all backgrounds who seek to stifle freedom and to create or widen societal divisions.
“We offer sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of those killed or injured in this attack. We also call for the swift apprehension of the perpetrators, who should be punished to the full extent of the law.”
Of course, this statement was made before the murder of four Jews in the kosher deli, and it is highly unlikely that such a statement would have been released if the victims of the first attack were all Jews who were targeted because they were Jews.
But we can’t ask Muslim leaders to renounce these murderous acts only to turn around and say, “How do we know you really mean it?”
That is, unless we have good reason to be skeptical.
When it comes to CAIR, do we?
It was reported on Nov. 22, 2010, that, “The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been connected to the terrorist organization Hamas, a federal judge said in a July 2009 ruling unsealed last week.”
As U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis said in the July 1, 2009, ruling, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA [the Islamic Society of North America], NAIT [the North American Islamic Trust], with HLF [the Holy Land Foundation], the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas.”
Just do a search for CAIR and Hamas and you’ll find scores of articles and links reinforcing this connection. Not surprisingly, WND columnist Pamela Geller has been all over this with an aggressive ad campaign.
This alone would make me skeptical. But it’s just the beginning.
On Aug. 22, 2014, Breitbart posted tweets from Nihad Awad, head of CAIR, stating that Israel, not ISIS or other global terror groups, is “the biggest threat to world peace and security. It: 1-targets civilians 2-has WMD 3-doesn’t respect international laws or values.”
Breitbart could not hold back its scorn for Awad: “Vladimir Putin’s Russian forces remain poised for a possible takeover of neighboring Ukraine. Nuclear-armed North Korea is ruled by an unstable, nihilistic dictator who constantly makes new threats against American allies and the United States itself (along with some of its filmmakers). The Islamic State terrorist group slaughters as many people who cross its path and poses a credible threat of genocide against the ancient Yazidi people in Iraq” – yet according to Awad, “those threats to global peace pale in comparison with the real threat to world peace and security: Israel.”
A jaw-dropping expose on the six-month undercover operation that revealed the true terror-supporting nature of CAIR: “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”
So, CAIR has been tied to Hamas, a Jew-killing terrorist organization, and the leader of CAIR believes Israel is a greater threat to world peace and security than ISIS (and others).
Let’s say that I have a more than healthy skepticism for CAIR’s statement renouncing the Paris massacres.
Ironically, while CAIR spoke boldly in favor of freedom of speech in their statement last week, even if it is deemed offensive to Muslims, it continues to be an opponent of that very kind of free speech.
According to attorney Deborah Weiss, primary writer and researcher of “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation,” “CAIR appears to have three main goals. One is to silence all criticism of anything related to Islam including Islamic terrorism. Second, it seeks to Islamize the workplace, and third, it works actively to hamper American national security.”
As evidence for the first goal, Weiss noted that “CAIR engages in strong-arm tactics to pressure corporations to comply with what amounts to Islamic blasphemy codes. For example,” she explains, “years ago Nike launched a sneaker, called ‘Nike Air.’ Someone complained that the logo for the word ‘air’ looked similar to the word ‘Allah’ in Arabic. CAIR went on a campaign to force Nike to recall the product on a worldwide scale and change the logo design. Unfortunately, it was successful. It also demanded that Nike make a public apology to all Muslims, that it change its design procedures and consult with CAIR in the future, and donate tens of thousands of dollars to Islamic schools and playgrounds. CAIR also threatened a global boycott, not just of Nike Air sneakers but of all Nike products. Nike resisted at first but eventually capitulated, in part, because it has a large audience in the Middle East that buys its products, and it feared a boycott would put the company out of business in that region.”
And it was just Monday of this week that JihadWatch.com reported that CAIR “included in its ‘American Muslim News Briefs’ mailing an item entitled ‘CAIR Asks Fox News to Drop Islamophobes.’ Most of it was made up of the usual smears, lies and distortions that Hamas-linked CAIR pumps out by the gallon.”
So, CAIR wants to restrict Fox’s freedom of speech.
This is just a representative sampling, but it’s enough to make me say: CAIR, I appreciate you issuing your statement renouncing the violence, but I don’t buy it. You might sincerely disagree with the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, but I cannot embrace you as a partner to combat Islamic terrorism. Your actions (and other words) speak louder than your statement.
Media wishing to interview Michael Brown, please contact [email protected].