# The Council for American Islamic Relations and Terrorism



## Mr. E (Aug 17, 2007)

Many people have probably heard of the Council for American Islamic Relations but have never thought much about it. I think that greater thought is in order. I hope this will inform and warn people to the possible threat this organization poses.

Before I go on, I know that many try to paint anyone who warns about Islamic terrorism as a bigot and/or a right wing fanatic with some agenda. So at the start I would like to pull out some quotes by people that are not the usual right- wing crowd.



> *U.S. Senator Richard Durbin:* "[CAIR is] unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations
> *********************************** with groups that are suspect"
> 
> 
> ...



from this article.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={463F0AC7-8950-4B6B-9DC3-F38B5DD068D8}



> *U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer:* "To praise an organization because they haven't been indicted
> ******************************************* is like somebody saying, 'I'm not a crook'"



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384987/site/newsweek/



> "Of particular note are the American Muslims who reject CAIR's claim to speak on their behalf. The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace, called CAIR the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent Islam."[8] Jamal Hasan of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance explains that CAIR's goal is to spread "Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook."[9] Kamal Nawash, head of Free Muslims Against Terrorism, finds that CAIR and similar groups condemn terrorism on the surface while endorsing an ideology that helps foster extremism, adding that "almost all of their members are theocratic Muslims who reject secularism and want to establish Islamic states."[10] Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance calls CAIR "the most accomplished fifth column" in the United States.[11] And Stephen Schwartz of the Center on Islamic Pluralism writes that "CAIR should be considered a foreign-based subversive organization, comparable in the Islamist field to the Soviet-controlled Communist Party, USA."[12]"



http://www.meforum.org/article/916

I hope this helps show that the concern is valid.

If you have not noticed statements by CAIR, you probably will start noticing them after reading this. They are quite vocal in their defense of anything that casts any Muslim in a bad light. Their stated aim is to serve as a bridge between American Muslims and the rest of society. Their real purpose seems quite a bit more sinister. 

The Chairman of CAIR, 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."

It might surprise people to read what even Wikipedia says about them. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAIR



> "Headquartered in Washington, D.C., with 32 regional offices and chapters in the U.S. and Canada, CAIR was founded in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber[2][3] of the Islamic Association of Palestine with funding from the Hamas group Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.[4] The Holy Land Foundation was later closed as a money-laundering scheme for terrorist support. Hamas is still denominated as a "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization" by the United States Department of State. [4]
> Critics have accused the group of being associated with extremists[1], and in 2007 U.S. federal prosecutors named CAIR an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a plot to fund the designated terrorist organization Hamas[5]."



Please read the rest of the article as well. I think people need to understand this group to understand them when next they hear about them on the news. In addition to the links I have given so far, please take the time to read at least some of these as well.

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/394

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43849

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/32

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/CAIR031607

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002621.php

http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20070106-OrlandoSentinel.htm

http://www.americansagainsthate.org/cw/

http://www.freedomszone.com/archives/2006/08/cair_says_we_shouldnt_call_mus_1.php

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11536725/

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c172.html

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/3838/islams-image-problem

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21599,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

Yes, it is a lot. There is more if you search.

One disturbing fact is that several people associated with CAIR have been indicated and convicted of helping terrorists. Some of you may recall that after the Oklahoma City bombing American militias were scoured in the belief that, if they did not actually help with the plans, that their message of hate and paranoia helped contribute. Despite that, CAIR still seems to have a large and influential presence. Their title alone seems to give them cover and anyone who denounces them, their actions or their message is labeled a hate -mongering bigot.

It is an established fact that there were and are front organizations working against other countries while pretending to be trying to bridge the gap between nations. CAIR is IMO a modern version of this.

If you read news items off of the internet and can search the news for key words, I urge you to find out just what CAIR is up to according to the news. I think what you will find will chill you.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 18, 2007)

One wonders why you would expend such time and energy investigating this oneorganization, unless you held a preset belief structure of intolerance toward the organization. And that is the definition of 'bigotted', isn't it? Being intolerant to a person or group based on their associations.

I imagine that if one performed a similiar search on any of the worlds organized religions, simillar nefarious groups, taking similarly nefarious actions could be found. Quite probably, they would also be found doing things that benefit their consituencies. For instance, you are aware that Hamas is a leading provider of schooling and healthcare for Palestinians? 

Heck, I recently watched the movie 'Breach', (based on a true story) and in it, I learned that Agnus Dei Catholics are not only sexual perverts, but also taking specific actions to bring down the United States government.


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> One wonders why you would expend such time and energy investigating this oneorganization, unless you held a preset belief structure of intolerance toward the organization. And that is the definition of 'bigotted', isn't it? Being intolerant to a person or group based on their associations.



No. I am wary of this group because of their actions. 

Despite what you have tried to say, I am not 'biggotted' against Muslims. I went out of my way to show that moderate Muslims stand against CAIR and have been targetted by them. CAIR does not stand for Muslims, only a fringe faction of them. I urge everyone to read what they have done and what they say instead of trying to paint someone (such as myself) as a bigot so as to marginalize them.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 18, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> I urge everyone to read what they have done and what they say instead of trying to paint someone (such as myself) as a bigot so as to marginalize them.


 
No. I really don't need to be fear-mongered into reading anything. I refuse to be cowed in fear because it allows you to gain satisfaction.


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> No. I really don't need to be fear-mongered into reading anything.



I can't force you to open your mind and at least read what others have to say. But could you please allow others to read and discuss things without you disrupting the thread?

Please?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 18, 2007)

One wonders how my posts are preventing others from reading your posts? 

And, one wonders how posting messages, on a message board, qualifies as 'disrupting' a message thread?

Unless, of course, only those who agree need apply. But, that brings us back to your first comment, doesn't it?


----------



## Brian King (Aug 18, 2007)

Interesting articles Mr. E. thanks for bringing them forward. I have long had my opinions about this group and most other apologist groups. I listen to what they have to say and the distorted logic of their rhetoric and their emotional appeal and manipulation and have to roll my eyes. That so many take the word of voices over the radio or articles and press releases written on the internet continues to amuse me and validate my own opinions of the intellectual laziness of both the consumer and the provider of the todays news. As in all things buyer beware. 

Do not worry about being called bigot, racist or sexist etc. It is a very old and weakest form of argument to attack the messenger when unable to refute the message. Unfortunately it is often effective in silencing opposition to certain views in todays Politically Correct hyper sensitive environment.

*OT* Could be an interesting thread Mr. E I would have gave you a positive rep hit for taking the time and effort and risk to post this thread, but just the other day gave you a negative rep hit for a post in a different thread and since I do not rep either positive or negative all too often, it will be awhile before I can again rep you. Regardless I continue to read your posts sir. Thank you

Brian King


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 18, 2007)

Brian said:


> Do not worry about being called bigot, racist or sexist etc. It is a very old and weakest form of argument to attack the messenger when unable to refute the message. Unfortunately it is often effective in silencing opposition to certain views in today&#8217;s Politically Correct hyper sensitive environment.



And it is one that CAIR has used to great effect.

Consider the case detailed in this article.

In November of 1999, two Saudi men were arrrested for trying to get into the cockpit of an American West flight. CAIR helped them to try to sue the airline for discrimination and tried to organize a boycott. CAIR wanted to punish the airline for stopping and arresting the two.

One, Hamdan al Shalawi, was later captured in Afghanistan with Al- Quaeda. The other, Muhammad Al-Qudhai&#8217;een, was arrested as a material witness for the 9-11 attacks in 2003. The FBI considers the incident a dry run for the 9-11 attacks. We really cannot know if CAIR's efforts intimidated any airline from taking action before the attacks for fear of facing a similar lawsuit and boycott.

But now we have the case of the flying imams. Six men who acccording to reports seemed to go out of their way to cause attention to themselves in an incident at Minneappolis. They left their assigned seats to a layout used by the 9-11 hijackers, asked for seat belt extensions they did not need and other acts that caused people to report them to the crew and led to them being taken off the flight. CAIR is helping the imams now as well. They even tried to bring legal action against those on the plane that reported the strange behavior to the crew. Congress passed a bill that would cover the reporting of suspicious acts in good faith and that part of the lawsuit was dropped.

But it clearly is a case of trying to intimidate people into looking the other way when they see behavior that may be suspicious. If the lawsuit had gone through, people might have been not eager to report something they saw for fear of being sued.

The time to be intimidated by the fear of possibly being branded an anti- Islamic bigot is over. We need to acknowledge that there are some muslims that are terrorists. Of course not all muslims are terrorists and they should not be treated as such. But _anyone_ who did what the people that CAIR helped with their lawsuits should be viewed with suspicion. Just because they are muslim does not mean that they were the victims of discrimination. It means that they were acting in a way that caused suspicion. Being muslim gives them no right to try to get into cockpits or ignore orders to stay in their seats.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Aug 18, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> I can't force you to open your mind and at least read what others have to say. But could you please allow others to read and discuss things without you disrupting the thread?
> 
> Please?


 
No. I dont believe he can.


----------



## Lisa (Aug 18, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

WE ARE LESS THEN 10 POSTS IN THIS THREAD AND WE HAVE RECEIVED MULTIPLE RTM'S REGARDING THIS THREAD.

DROP THE ISSUE.  IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT OTHERS SAY USE THE IGNORE BUTTON.  WE WILL BE DEALING WITH THE ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN THUS FAR.

ONE MORE AND THE THREAD WILL BE LOCKED.

Lisa Deneka
MT Assist. Admin.

*


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 18, 2007)

Lisa said:


> ONE MORE AND THE THREAD WILL BE LOCKED.



But what if someone does not even want a subject to be discussed? What if someone is *trying* to shut down the thread so that it goes away? Aren't you just telling them how to get that done by posting just one more inflamatory post?

I do not want this thead shut down. If I did not want this discussed, I would not have started this thread. Instead of giving someone who might want this thread shut down the means, could you think about some pruning instead?


----------



## Lisa (Aug 18, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> But what if someone does not even want a subject to be discussed? What if someone is *trying* to shut down the thread so that it goes away? Aren't you just telling them how to get that done by posting just one more inflamatory post?
> 
> I do not want this thead shut down. If I did not want this discussed, I would not have started this thread. Instead of giving someone who might want this thread shut down the means, could you think about some pruning instead?



As I said, we are dealing with the problems brought to our attention thus far.  This issue needs to be dropped.  If you feel that is happening, RTM the posts and bring it to the attention of the moderators.

This issue is closed.  Please return to the Original topic of the thread.  Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MT Assist. Admin.


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 18, 2007)

Here is link to an article that details what I talked about the lawsuits brought by the "flying imams" with the help of CAIR.

The following quote from it should scare folks when taken in context with the attempt to brand anyone has suspicions about any Muslim.



> Because we can't have police everywhere, civilian tips are indispensable. A video-store clerk alerted authorities to the Fort Dix plot after he saw a tape of men in Muslim attire firing guns &#8212; but not before he wondered, "Should I call someone or is that being racist?" Debra Burlingame points out that an airline employee who checked in two of the 9/11 passengers didn't ask for a special search of them because "I was worried about being accused of being 'racist.'"



So two of the 9-11 hijackers were not subjected to a special search because the employee was scared of being branded as a racist.

Keep that in mind as you see attack after attack by CAIR and their ilk against anyone that reports strange behavior.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 19, 2007)

You'd have problems reporting strange behaviour here, it's an Englishman's right to be eccentric and I stand by that!

It's also a right in your country and mine to have legal representation whether you are guilty or not as the law says you are innocent until proved otherwise. Always a good thing to remember in so many different circumstances I find.


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 19, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> It's also a right in your country and mine to have legal representation whether you are guilty or not as the law says you are innocent until proved otherwise.



I think that you have mistaken CAIR's involvement.

They did not help either the people in 1999 or last year defend themselves in court. Instead, they were the ones to help launch a legal attack on others.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> I think that you have mistaken CAIR's involvement.
> 
> They did not help either the people in 1998 or last year defend themselves in court. Instead, they were the ones to help launch a legal attack on others.


 
You don't like them much do you?


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 19, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> You don't like them much do you?



No. Not really. Not with the things they have done and things they advocate.

There are Muslims trying to stop the radicalization and hijacking of their religion by a few hate-mongers. CAIR is one of the groups defending the violent radicals and attacking the moderate members of Islam. For some odd reason I just can't bring myself to have warm feelings for people that  do that type of thing.

I urge you to read up on them and see for yourself the type of things they do. Read both sides of the story and make your own choices. I think that if you are honest and informed enough, you will come closer to my opinion than you are now.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 19, 2007)

I don't have an opinion on them at all and I'm not about to form one.

Governments by nature are great lumbering beasts, it doesn't matter whether they are democratic or a dictatorship they are still slow in moving but they do move. You can rest assured that if this group is as dangerous as you stay your government is keeping it's eyes on it. and if it's as innocent as they say it it they have little to concern themselves about.

My main job when not distracted by squabbling squaddies on the pop is security and that means also intelligence. organisations that could be promoting terrosism or harbouring terrorists are very closly watched in ways that you may think only exist in spy films. 

I have *no doubts* at all that your government's security people are watching this organisation very closely and there is no need at all for your country's citizens to bombard martial arts forums with a long list of links that few of us quite honestly have time to click onto as we are busy juggling what my government likes to call 'the work life balance.'

This thread is in great danger of becoming either a witch hunt or a farce. What worries me far more is that it has been raining nearly all summer here and this may well be the result of global warming. We have had horrendous floods with resultant lost of lives, homes and everything people have. If I were you I'd look more closely at your country's carbon footprint, it's refusal to sign the Kyoto Agreement and it's refusal to cut carbon emmissions. _This is killing us all and soon there will be no world for anyone to take over._

That's my tuppence worth said!


----------



## Brian King (Aug 19, 2007)

*TEZ3 wrote*
*



I don't have an opinion on them at all and I'm not about to form one.

Click to expand...

* 
This is an interesting statement to me. As a thinking feeling human I form opinions all the time, Coke-cola or Pepsi, Crest toothpaste or Colgate? Having an opinion is natural and a part of our survival system. It of course behooves us to form our opinions with as much information mixed with our common sense and experience as is possible. Denying ones opinions seems as unhealthy to me as those that are unwilling to even consider changing their opinion. Both attitudes seem stubborn and self destructive. 

*TEZ3 wrote*


> I have *no doubts* at all that your government's security people are watching this organisation very closely and there is no need at all for your country's citizens to bombard martial arts forums with a long list of links that few of us quite honestly have time to click onto as we are busy juggling what my government likes to call 'the work life balance.'


Well Tez3, I have to disagree a little. Not all of our governments security people can be watching this organization as most are very busy doing all that they can with-in our laws, which are much different than your countries laws. That there are reports and intelligence gatherings on this particular organization I would hope so, but I do not think it is guaranteed. We over here do not (yet) have cameras on every corner watching our citizens and our intelligence agencies are very much limited on what they can and how they can gather intelligence on our citizens especially as compared to what your government can gather on her subjects. 

I agree that not all of my countries citizens need bombard martial art forums with threads containing long lists of links, lets be honest; can one thread by one writer really make a blitz? 

I can of course only speak for myself. There have been many threads with very long posts or by the time I have seen the thread there have been so many replies that with my time limited I can not hope to read the posts and give them the time needed to understand and process the information, time needed so that I can intelligently contribute to the thread, in those cases I choose to not participate other than as an interested observer (lurking I think it is called). A pet peeve of mine is when a post starts out with the I have not read the whole thread but here is my opinion anyway

If a person does not want to take the time or does not have the time perhaps to read the OP, perhaps they might want to consider holding their opinions of the OP until they can get the time. It is kind of like when having a conversation with adults and a child wanting attention keeps interrupting. 




> This thread is in great danger of becoming either a witch hunt or a farce.


 
Yes it is, so it would seem. Perhaps if those not wanting it to become such could take the time and consideration to word their posts so as to not purposely inflame others, combined with the thoughtfulness that if people are inflamed perhaps they could take a breathe and contemplate what they are writing and how it will be read by others before hitting send, then perhaps this thread may prove of interest and worthy discussion. Or yes it could be locked and drift to the bottom and the words and understanding left unthought-of and unsaid.




> What worries me far more is that it has been raining nearly all summer here and this may well be the result of global warming. We have had horrendous floods with resultant lost of lives, homes and everything people have. If I were you I'd look more closely at your country's carbon footprint, it's refusal to sign the Kyoto Agreement and it's refusal to cut carbon emmissions. _This is killing us all and soon there will be no world for anyone to take over._


 
Not sure what this has to do with the topic other than to perhaps get that last RTM thingy that the moderator warned about? Perhaps you can start your own thread blaming America for the rain in London and all the other woes the world faces, list your links and proof and state your opinion. It might be worth the discussion. As for telling Americans or others what they should look at, well that usually doesnt go over very well. Nobody likes it and it usually results in stiffening of opinion rather than the openness that I am sure we all would prefer. 


_A reminder what the moderator wrote._ 
*WE HAVE RECEIVED MULTIPLE RTM'S REGARDING THIS THREAD*

*And*

*ONE MORE AND THE THREAD WILL BE LOCKED.*

It is for some an emotional subject yet passion can be harnessed for good honest discussion, those who do not have the time or control to participate (including lurkers such as myself) with out minding the moderators warning might better serve their time and emotional needs on a different thread.

My own opinion of the group here in question is rather low; I have read their own words, listened carefully to their spokesmen on television and radio and on the street (I could not finish the speech as the hate and ridiculousness of the speaker got too much for me) to form that opinion. I have traveled and I have seen and I refuse to let others think for me. Apologist whether individuals or groups that can only state their side of the story, their slant, and refuse to even hear or consider the other are amusing and flawed. This is one of those groups that can not even consider the others views but also only see their actions or the actions of those they choose to support in a rose colored tint, no matter the action, no matter the result. Their work is certainly cut out for them as they have to use such tangled logic and emotional arguments to try put those rose tint glasses on actions that can hardly be called anything other than evil. They may well have cause and right on their side on some issues but their refusal to call bad on others calls all their views into question and very much makes their work on those few issues where they can make a beneficial change much less likely. 

Brian King

P.S. 



> My main job when not distracted by squabbling squaddies on the pop


 
LOL I have tried to find English to English translator on line but failed. I have absolutely no idea what the above means?
Bri


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 20, 2007)

Brian, I can quite easily not have an opinion on something! It requires not thinking about something though. I have so much to think about at the best of times that stuff quite easily slips through my brain.

I posted on this thread because of a thread somewhere else. I have actually read the whole thread though not the links. 

What I was trying to point out when I said people should look at their carbon footprint is that it is something positive that people can do to improve the planet and lessen the destruction. As I said, there's no point in plotting to take over the world if we have no world left.It affects everyone after all. And I live four hundred miles from London! 

You might not guarentee that there's intelligence being gathered on this organisation but I would (and will) and not just by the Americans, I can think of at least four other countries who will be monitoring them! The problem is that you live in a democracy that says free speech is a right and unfortunately that mean people being able to say things that are hateful to others. It's an old problem that has been debated by finer minds than mine, do you stifle free speech and only hear what pleases you or do you allow free speech and get stuff you don't want? This organisation is basically allowed to say what it wants but and it's a big but if it then starts taking actions which are against the law then you can close then down.

I think you may have got the wrong idea about CCTV in the UK. It's certainly not on every street corner, it's mostly confined to cities and then places where occurrances are likely. CCTV is also used as it is in the States in shops, banks and on some motorways.

Internet discussions rarely produce reasonable and constructive arguments, when it's something as emotive as this I have grave doubts whether this one will prove any different.

Squaddie = British Soldier

pop = booze, alcohol.

The British soldier has a huge propensity to fight, anyone, anywhere, they're not that fussed who, though a favourite is the Royal Military Police but then we all like a pop at them lol!


----------



## Brian King (Aug 20, 2007)

> "The problem is that you live in a democracy that says free speech is a right and unfortunately that mean people being able to say things that are hateful to others.


 
I give thanks to God many times daily for my living where and when I do. Mean and ignorant people can say what they want and I have done much to guarantee that right continues. At the same time I reserve the right to call BS on them and their ideas. I mentioned earlier the speech that I stopped at to listen to. I did not try to shut them down or shout them down I left instead, I have also been to events to listen to views where others did try to shout down the speakers, ironically the shouters were college kids organized by groups such as the one in the OP. Free speech is not only a right but it is also a responsibility. People have a right to be hateful and mean and also ignorant and stupid just as other people have the right to reveal that ignorance and meanness and the responsibility of good citizenship to do so while still respecting the others right to voice their opinions. 




> This organisation is basically allowed to say what it wants but and it's a big but if it then starts taking actions which are against the law then you can close then down.


 
I am a private citizen so I can not close them or others down. I can stay informed. I can also observe and report. But even more important I can discuss their ideas and my ideas and show the differences between them. 




> I think you may have got the wrong idea about CCTV in the UK. It's certainly not on every street corner, it's mostly confined to cities and then places where occurrances are likely. CCTV is also used as it is in the States in shops, banks and on some motorways.


 
Likely I do. I have never been to England and have no plans of going anytime soon. I have seen the CCTV of your subway bombers and I have seen the CCTV of street and traffic cameras and have read about the great number of high tech cameras over there. We have CCTV here as well, but not near so many or technically advanced. A few traffic cameras at the chock points in traffic which are mostly unmanned and used for news traffic reports, A few at public buildings such as court houses and airports and a very few in high crime areas. I do not think it is a privacy issue but a financial issue and political will, as I am sure that many in our government would like many more cameras. Most of the CCTV in shops, banks and the like are privately owned and the government has no mandatory access with out a court order and those are very difficult to get. Is the CCTV footage over there mainly controlled by the government or by private persons?




> Internet discussions rarely produce reasonable and constructive arguments


 
LOL that is true and with the usual understatement the British are known for LOL I can whole heartedly agree yet, that is no reason to at least try, wouldnt you agree? 




> The British soldier has a huge propensity to fight, anyone, anywhere, they're not that fussed who, though a favourite is the Royal Military Police but then we all like a pop at them lol!


 
I have noticed this propensity among the British and not just her soldiers. And God bless them and it. That is what makes a good enemy become a good friend. The honesty to stand up and say bring it. To be willing to fight at the drop of a hat and to be willing to drop that hat at any moment is a strength. One both our countries peoples are lucky to have in abundance. It has changed the world I believe for the better and is needed as much today as any other time in our histories.

Thanks for the English lessons. Words and their meaning fascinate me.

I do not think and certainly can not speak for Mr. E that his reasons for posting the topic are malicious but rather he felt the need to try to educate on what for some is an emotional topic. I do not hear the yell to shut them down but to rather notice what they are saying and doing and give appropriate weight to their views and actions. The kind of attention and honest debate all to rare in todays Politically Correct world.

Brian King


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 21, 2007)

Brian said:


> I do not think and certainly can not speak for Mr. E that his reasons for posting the topic are malicious but rather he felt the need to try to educate on what for some is an emotional topic. I do not hear the yell to shut them down but to rather notice what they are saying and doing and give appropriate weight to their views and actions. The kind of attention and honest debate all to rare in today&#8217;s Politically Correct world.



Thank you Mr King. You are very correct in what you say.

It is a sad fact that many people will not think things through today. If there is something that makes is sound like the person is an expert, or stands for something, then people tend to accept it without checking the facts about the matter or those saying it. As martial artists on this board we are probably all aware of how a few people getting together and giving themselves some title like "World Combat- Experienced Mystical Shaolin Monks and Soke Association" will help them to attract people because not one in a hundred people seem to check on what that type of group that really is. It _sounds_ like a legit group, so they just accept it.

CAIR is the same. It pretends to be working for the protection of Muslim rights and helping them live in America, but their purpose seems to be to avoid anything that would help Islam move away from the fringe that has done so much harm in its name. 

When people hear that CAIR opposes the St Petersburg Declaration and accuses those supporting it of having anti-muslim agendas, some would probably listen to only that. Certainly CAIR does not seem to be willing to deal with any of the points raised in the declaration. They merely try to portray themselves as a group opposed to Islamaphobia and those that oppose them like the Muslims that signed the declaration as being opposed to Islam.

If I do nothing else, I would like people to question things the next time they hear something like that from CAIR and research things for themselves before coming up with an opinion and acting. I want both sides to be listened to and all the facts to come out rather than shouting down one side as being biggoted. Thank you for noticing.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Aug 21, 2007)

Its amusing how people pointing out organizations like CAIR get labled as racist/bigot etc. But the organization in question gets a pass. When did we become such a country or whimps that we cant stand for anythng or state our dislike for an organization like this without being labled? PC at its worst.


----------



## Mark L (Aug 21, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Its amusing how people pointing out organizations like CAIR get labled as racist/bigot etc. But the organization in question gets a pass. When did we become such a country or whimps that we cant stand for anythng or state our dislike for an organization like this without being labled? PC at its worst.


We're not all wimps, but some just don't have the desire or patience to fight through the name calling and mis-characterizations until the issue can be viewed in the light of day.  Pick your topic: gay marriage, illegal immigration, islamic fundamentalism, global warming, media bias, etc.  It's difficult to raise a contentious, contemporary issue that doesn't quickly degenerate into a bunch of BS that obscures meaningful discussion.  Some days I feel like a good scrap, others I just like to watch.

FWIW, I think CAIR is a very dangerous organization.  And I don't understand why a large portion of Muslims are allowing these and other radical factions to hijack their religion.  It makes me wonder where they really stand.  If that causes some to classify me as a bigot, go ahead.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 22, 2007)

I don't know the demographics of America so can anyone say how many Muslims there are or what the percentage of the country is Muslim?


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 22, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know the demographics of America so can anyone say how many Muslims there are or what the percentage of the country is Muslim?



Take a look at this article to see the problems.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/76

By law, the American census can't ask what religion someone is.

Best guess, about 2,000,000 out of about 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.) The figures go from about one- fourth of that to four times that.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 22, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know the demographics of America so can anyone say how many Muslims there are or what the percentage of the country is Muslim?


 
Worldwide, the estimates are that there are 1.2 Billion followers of Islam. The numbers I have seen for the United States is six to seven million Muslims. The population of the United States is approximately 300,000,000. If the 6 million is correct, that is 2%.

As for the referenced Daniel Pipes. He should not be considered a credible source for information on Islam. He is a vitriolic Zionist. I believe he is on record as stating the the only way for Israel to secure itself, is to eliminate Islam. In October of 2001, he is quoted with "_The increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews_."


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As for the referenced Daniel Pipes. He should not be considered a credible source for information on Islam. He is a vitriolic Zionist. I believe he is on record as stating the the only way for Israel to secure itself, is to eliminate Islam. In October of 2001, he is quoted with "_The increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews_."



I just have a natural aversion to trying to shout down opposing viewpoints by labling them racist, bigoted, islamaphobic or anything like that. 

Daniel Pipes does give sources for the various figures he gives. I think it would be a much better course to do a google search of all of them and make a judgement for yourself rather than give a figure and try to discredit any other viewpoint without further research or debate.

Here is another source that gives some figures and relates the same problems that Pipes does.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/immigrat.htm

Perhaps it would be best to do a google search on the matter, read several sources and try to come up with an estimate of your own.


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As for the referenced Daniel Pipes. He should not be considered a credible source for information on Islam. He is a vitriolic Zionist. I believe he is on record as stating the the only way for Israel to secure itself, is to eliminate Islam. In October of 2001, he is quoted with "_The increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews_."



I was suspicious about the part that had been left out of the quote. When you see three periods in a row in a sentence, it does not mean that the person paused while speaking. It means that something was cut out. I found the original quote posted here.

Link to an article with the full quote.

Here is the original, unaltered quote.



> "I worry very much, from the Jewish point of view, that the presence, and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims, *because they are so much led by an Islamist leadership, that this* will present true dangers to American Jews."



Note the part that had been cut out makes it clear that he is not afraid of Muslims because they are Muslim, but because fringe elements seem to be the most active and influential among them.

And you can see the reason why groups such as CAIR always cut this portion out of the quote and try to give the rest of it as much play as possible. To me, it is pretty clear that they are trying to misrepresent Mr Pipes and divert attention away from the fact that it is *they* and not the typical muslim just trying to live his life that is the concern.

This kind of goes back to what Mark L wrote about when he posted,



			
				Mark L said:
			
		

> FWIW, I think CAIR is a very dangerous organization. And I don't understand why a large portion of Muslims are allowing these and other radical factions to hijack their religion. It makes me wonder where they really stand. If that causes some to classify me as a bigot, go ahead.



And I think others, if they consider it, would also be concerned that when groups such as CAIR seem to call the shots for the Muslim community that there might be reason to be concerned. Muslim- affiliated groups such as the ones that put out the St Petersburg Declaration are trying to give rise to a more tolerant, peaceful version of Islam. But groups such as CAIR seek to wipe them out so as to keep their version of Islam the one that is most active and influential.

But it seems that CAIR has found that calling anyone who exposes them an islamaphobe a very effective tactic. They seem to use it quite often instead of dealing with the facts people bring up. I do not think they would keep using the same tactic for every last critic of theirs unless they found it worked.


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 29, 2007)

Here is a recent example of CAIR in the news.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-26-texastrial_N.htm?csp=34

Some interesting quotes.



> The committee oversaw a number of past and current Muslim organizations in the United States.
> 
> One was Holy Land, which was shut down in December 2001 and accused of being a fundraising front for Hamas. Five of its former leaders are on trial in Dallas, charged with sending more than $12 million in illegal aid to Hamas.
> 
> ...





> The writer of the memo, Mohamed Akram, wrote that members of the brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within."



And of course, the standard CAIR defense when evidence of its intentions and actions are brought to light.



> "That's one of those urban legends about CAIR," he said. "It's fed by the right-wing, pro-Israeli blogosphere."



This story is about charities that took money and funnelled it to terrorists working against the west. I think people should read this article and take a closer look at the charities they may be giving to through programs at work.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2007)

Quote:
The committee oversaw a number of past and current Muslim organizations in the United States.

One was Holy Land, which was shut down in December 2001 and accused of being a fundraising front for Hamas. Five of its former leaders are on trial in Dallas, charged with sending more than $12 million in illegal aid to Hamas.

Another was the Islamic Association for Palestine, which closed in 2004 after a federal judge found it and then-defunct Holy Land liable in the killing of an American teenager in Israel by Hamas gunmen.

And a third was the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has emerged as a leading advocacy group for American Muslims.

*For the first time, evidence in the case put CAIR's founder, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of alleged Hamas supporters that was secretly watched and recorded by the FBI.* 

As I said, someone will be watching and investigating them.


_*This story is about charities that took money and funnelled it to terrorists working against the west. I think people should read this article and take a closer look at the charities they may be giving to through programs at work.*_


This is true of many organisations not just Muslims ones, we had been asking for many years that people look at money that they thought was for charities in N Ireland but were actually buying arms, bomb making equipment


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 29, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> As I said, someone will be watching and investigating them.



For criminal actions, then it is good that the police look into things like this.

But CAIR also works as a former of public opinion. And as such, should be watched by those who form opinions.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 29, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> For criminal actions, then it is good that the police look into things like this.
> 
> But CAIR also works as a former of public opinion. And as such, should be watched *by those who form opinions*.


 
Lets me out then! 

Seriously, I will make up my own mind without being harangued by either side. Many organisations lobby public and parliamentary opinions. The multinational companies pay a lot of money trying to influence people through advertising agencies,they also pay lobbyists money to influence government ministers. The world is full of people trying to influence others opinions, this can be called advertising or it can be called propaganda. 
Mr E I understand that you feel strongly about this organisation and you have brought it to our notice, now I think you are in danger of patronising us. I'm sure everyone who read it understood their agenda and have made their minds up already and in fact i suspect most agree with you that this organisation needs watching but you do not need to keep telling us this as if we were children. The effect it's having on me is that I feel inclined to argue against you. Others have made interesting and readable posts which proves they understand the point you are trying to make. I'm not on anyone's side, I'm not calling anyone a racist, I just want to say you are labouring the point as far as I'm concerned. Were you this vocal against Sinn Fein when it did exactly the same as CAIR in America?


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 29, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Seriously, I will make up my own mind without being harangued by either side.



Really, I am a bit shaken by the attitude you show.

I always try to get as much information from both sides of an issue before I  form an opinion. You are the second person who has basically said that you would not listen to one side or the other before you form yours. Honestly, I can't understand why you would have that sort of attitude. It is just something outside my experience.

And I am really taken back by the way you post in a thread discussing things your don't want to read or talk about. This just seems strange to me.

There are other threads here that have gone on for a long time. I see no reason to stop them, or attempt to stop me from posting. I do not see you complaining about them. I only see you comlaining about global warming and such in a thread meant to discuss and inform about CAIR. I posted new news, new information for people to be better informed about the matter.

I can understand if you don't want to hear anymore, but why bother reading this thread at all, much less post, if you are turned off by it? Can't you just let others post what they want within the rules? To be honest, it sounds like you are trying to say what can and can't be posted here.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> Really, I am a bit shaken by the attitude you show.
> 
> I always try to get as much information from both sides of an issue before I form an opinion. You are the second person who has basically said that you would not listen to one side or the other before you form yours. Honestly, I can't understand why you would have that sort of attitude. It is just something outside my experience.
> 
> ...


 

You have mistaken me, I haven't said I won't listen to both sides before forming an opinion, what I'm saying is that you are the only one who is labouring the point and giving us your _same_ opinion _constantly!_ I'm saying I have read and understand your point of view, you don't need to keep telling me! Other threads have gone on yes but there has been discussion on _many levels and many points_. I haven't complained about global warming, I made a point as I have others about terrorism which you have chosen to ignore. I also said I will make my mind up myself, I will listen to both sides but *I will not be harangued by anyone*.

I am not trying to dictate what you can and can't say on this thread, far from it. I'm saying that every post you post up says the same thing, Cair is bad, Cair must be watched. Yes, we understood that on the first post, many people agree with you.

The first thing I wanted to do when I posted on this thread was to turn it away from being an argument about racism, the second was to restart it as a proper discussion. I feel Mr E that you don't read my posts as you've misunderstood just about everything I have written. A discussion is not one where one side just repeats his point of view as if he were talking to children. Far from trying to stop discussion I'm trying to invite more comments so that it does turn into a discusssion. Other posters see this, I've had very good discussions with them. We don't have to agree to be able to discuss or debate things but we have to have something more to go on than CAIR is bad all the time. You seem to be upset more that I am saying I will make my decisions on the criteria I chose rather than by your criteria.


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 30, 2007)

If you do not like what I write, but I am not disrupting anything, then feel free to skip reading this thread.

If you want to post in this thead, how about something related to the subject? What do you feel about the St Petersburg Declaration and CAIR's response to it?

Honestly, it looks more and more like Brian was correct.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> If you do not like what I write, but I am not disrupting anything, then feel free to skip reading this thread.
> 
> Honestly, it looks more and more like Brian was correct.


 
Really, you think?

I've not said I didn't like what you wrote, I've said you don't need to keep reposting it. You posted that this organisaton needed watching, people agreed with you, I said that there will be people watching which was subsequently proved true. You still keep saying they need watching and you miss the points I'm trying to make. Nor have you answered my question on whether you were this vocal when Sinn Fein were doing in America exactly what CAIR is doing now.

I'm trying to make serious points and make this discussion worthwhile but all I'm getting from you is that I want to shut you up, far from it. I want you to expand on your posts. I mentioned global warming to get a point across and to get a discussion going in a different way that it was heading.... into being closed if you look back. It wasn't a moan, it was point for debating, is the threat of global warming a bigger one than Al Queada terrorism or is that the bigger problem? should we worry about CAIR or should we worry about things closer to home? You see the way I'm going?

I understand that when you feel very strongly about something it's hard to have someone who doesn't see it as such a problem you do. You cannot make people think the way you do, CAIR is entitled, as I was pointing out to try to influence peoples opinions as is McDonalds, Microsoft and governments etc. You are doing exactly the same in trying to influence peoples opinions against them, that's fair, it's democracy. What's not fair is misreading my posts and putting into them things I never meant or said.


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 30, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> It wasn't a moan, it was point for debating, is the threat of global warming a bigger one than Al Queada terrorism or is that the bigger problem? should we worry about CAIR or should we worry about things closer to home? You see the way I'm going?



How about starting a thread, or joining one in progress, about global warming?

Really, after Michealward disrupted things by accusing me of being racist, you stepped in to talk about just about anything other than CAIR.

Why are some people so scared to talk about these types of things? Why do they attempt to shut up reasoned, informative discussion about threats they may not have been aware of? Why is a martialtalk mentor doing her best to see that no discussion goes on about an organization she won't even read the links about?


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 30, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please, return to the original topic.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> How about starting a thread, or joining one in progress, about global warming?
> 
> Really, after Michealward disrupted things by accusing me of being racist, you stepped in to talk about just about anything other than CAIR.
> 
> Why are some people so scared to talk about these types of things? Why do they attempt to shut up reasoned, informative discussion about threats they may not have been aware of? Why is a martialtalk mentor doing her best to see that no discussion goes on about an organization she won't even read the links about?


 


I do not want a discussion about global warming,I am not trying to stop you discussing Cair. I'm asking for a discussion about it not to be told just that they need watching.

I don't need to read your links, I know far more about the organisation than you do as my job is as an anti terrorist officer in the Ministry of Defence and I have access to a lot of information and intelligence which I looked up when this thread was started. I even contacted an acquaintance on the American end of things. No, you weren't to know that but you wouldn't accept my opinion as being a valid one.

No one is trying to shut you up, quite the opposite I have been trying to draw you into a conversation regarding this issue. Ok have it your way, I tried.
.


----------



## bydand (Aug 30, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> How about starting a thread, or joining one in progress, about global warming?
> 
> Really, after Michealward disrupted things by accusing me of being racist, you stepped in to talk about just about anything other than CAIR.
> 
> Why are some people so scared to talk about these types of things? Why do they attempt to shut up reasoned, informative discussion about threats they may not have been aware of? Why is a martialtalk mentor doing her best to see that no discussion goes on about an organization she won't even read the links about?



Mr.E,  I can see where you are passionate about some of the threads you post in; this of course being one of them, but you really need to reign in a bit.  Michealward and Tez both have their point-of-view as well and should be free to post them as well as you, weather or not those views are in line with yours.  Being the OP of a thread doesn't make you the leader of the discussion on that thread, it just makes you the first one to post.  I have had plenty of threads go a direction I didn't agree with, or want, but good honest discussion was taking place and I appreciated that.  Both of the posters you seem to be having a problem opening up and seeing their side of the story have been here on MT quite  some time and although I do not agree with all of their posts, I still will look into the "why" behind their posts.   I can see why Tez wouldn't read the links, she is is England and deals with the problems over their on a day to day basis, on a level that puts her and her colleagues/friends on the front lines.  Frankly I wouldn't read or care about them either in her shoes, she has better resourses than the internet.  Michealward, stated that the general purpose of a thread like this is generally motivated by bigotry/racism, not that you yourself were either (with his posts you really do have to read everything exactly the way he writes them, I don't agree with much he posts, but he is well read, and posts what he means. )  If he thought you yourself were a racist, he would have called you one without beating around the bush.

 Now about the original post;  Thank you for the links.  I also think it is an organization that needs watching, along with plenty of others in our Country.


----------



## bydand (Aug 30, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> _*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*
> 
> _Please, return to the original topic.
> 
> ...



Sorry for the last post I made.  I was typing it while you posted this warning.  If you feel it is out of line, please delete it and we will get on with the intent of the thread.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2007)

I posted this elsewhere but am posting it again. I have fought terrorism since 1971 and I am passionate about protecting people and enabling them to continue to live their lives as normally as possible. We cannot give in to terrorism, this means not fearing every shadow and organisation that appears to be a threat. It means that the best way to stand up to them is to live your life to the full and to face whatever comes with calmness and rationality.


My post....
I was asking about the demographics basically because I had a feeling the Muslims are very much in the minority in North America and I refuse to believe that all Muslims should be vilified for the beliefs of extremists. I have very good relationships with many Muslims, at the shows they rely on me to sort a room out for their prayers etc, they know I understand perhaps better than non Jews and Muslims how important this is to them.

When it comes to terrorist activities I maintain a totally impartial view which is why I think that CAIR itself will be very careful to remain only vocal. 

I dislike hysterical responses and opposition based on fear. I have heard theories that govenments like a good scare as it enables them to push through legislature that otherwise would be opposed ie the ID card situation both in America and here.

Appalling as 9/11 was, it didn't herald the fall of the United States, the country is stronger than that. The shock of being attacked in your homeland is traumatic but stock should be taken and sensible precautions taken not hysterical ones. There has to be a balance between living the life you have chosen and living in a secure environment. We also have to have the moral high ground and behave as impeccably as we can, one of my concerns is the holding of prisoners without trial. We need to uphold democratic laws not make draconian ones which penalise everyone and imprison us all.

We have both in America and in the UK decided we are in favour of free speech, that it is important to us and our way of life. This brings obligations that we may not like but have to uphold. Organisations such as CAIR have to be tolerated to a certain point, the trick is to look at them in a cold and analytical way and see beyond the "trash talk".

Last night I saw something so horrific I still feel quite sick but I am filled with so much admiration for the medics and soldiers concerned I can't express my admiration for all the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan enough. It was a slide show of an American frontline medical unit (Field Hospital?) and the casualties going through it. This is the bottom line, young men and women giving their lives for our freedom. We had better make sure that it is for our freedom, that fear doesn't take away from us the very things they believe they are fighting for.
__________________


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 30, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> My post....
> I was asking about the demographics basically because I had a feeling the Muslims are very much in the minority in North America and I refuse to believe that all Muslims should be vilified for the beliefs of extremists.



The best way to do that seems to be to stand up to groups like CAIR and show that they do not speak for the peace- loving Muslims out there. There is a war within Islam for who will speak and lead them and so far the extremists seem to have the edge. Those that speak for the moderates or oppose the fanatics that have hijacked Islam are shouted down as bigots or attacked for some sort of bias.

Take a look at what I am talking about. I have talked about the St Petersburg Declaration before. Have you read it in the links I posted? Here is is again for those just joining us.

http://www.secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration

And here is the text of it.



> Released by the delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007
> 
> We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.
> 
> ...



Now before you read on, please try to find something in the above that you can find fault with. Please read it again and try to find something that you think prevents a person who merely wants to practice their religion peacefully without interference. At the beggining, they clearly state that both believers and non- believers helped draft the document. But is there anything that you can find that would not be a grand way for Muslims to live in peace with their neighbors?

Now let us take a look at how CAIR has tried to stifle this type of thing.

I want you to note that the link below goes straight to the CAIR site and that the writer signs it with his title of board chairman of CAIR. 


http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=43596&theType=NB



> CAIR: REFORM IS ALREADY IN ISLAMIC TRADITION
> 
> A recent Wall Street Journal column ("Islam's Other Radicals") promotes the idea that only those who have left Islam have the moral and spiritual equilibrium to "reform" that faith.
> 
> ...



If you only read what CAIR _said about_ the St Petersburg Declaration instead of reading it for yourself, you would think that it was composed completely of anti islamic neocons who call for the death of all muslims.

You may also note that they do not deal _at all_ with any of the points brought up in the declaration. They do not link to the original so that people can see what is said for themselves, they do not quote anything from the document and they don't bring up points and say why they oppose it.

Instead, they attack the people that proposed this alternate to the extremists. They hint that the declaration and things like it require muslims to renounce their faith.

Is there anything in the original that anyone can find that would prevent a person who just wanted to be left alone to practice Islam from doing so? The declaration rallies against those that call for the death of authors, or kill those that leave the faith, forced marriages and things of that nature. All of these things are things done to others. Are these things neccesary to be a good muslim? What part of banning honor killngs is "reforming Islam by asking Muslims to abandon their faith"?

We have seen in the quote supplied by Michealward that CAIR and its allies will twist words in order to make them sound biggoted and try to pull support away from those that speak for peaceful Islam. We can't expect people who use these type of tactics to fight fair in the realm of ideas.

The key to protect peaceful muslims is not to shout down those that oppose CAIR, but to raise your voice against groups like CAIR and show support for those groups whose only wish is to practice their faith peacefully. Without our support, the fanatics will have the upper hand since they are more eager to win for what they feel is God's way and are free to use any means to win.

It is our silence that will let the fanatics win. Our silence and fear of standing up to evil for fear of being branded a bigot is what will defeat those that work for a future where Muslims can live in peace with the rest of the world.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2007)

Mr. E said:


> We have seen in the quote supplied by Michealward that CAIR and its allies will twist words in order to make them sound biggoted and try to pull support away from those that speak for peaceful Islam. We can't expect people who use these type of tactics to fight fair in the realm of ideas.


 
I have made four posts in this thread. This is my fifth post. 

I have not supplied any quotes to this thread, that were not sourced from this thread. In post 4, I quoted Mr. E, to reply to the verb in his sentence; 'urge'. In post 27, I quoted Tez3, to respond to her question as to the demographics of the United States. The quotes I "supplied" are the words of my colleagues on this message board. 

I have once been admonished for my participation in this thread, and have left participating. I would appreciate if you leave me out of your comments.

P.S. I suppose I should point out that in this post, post number 45, I use a quote of Mr. E in which, he brings forth my name. In this instance, I believes his calling out of my name (incorrectly, by the way) merits a response.


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 30, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I have made four posts in this thread. This is my fifth post.
> 
> I have not supplied any quotes to this thread, that were not sourced from this thread. In post 4, I quoted Mr. E, to reply to the verb in his sentence; 'urge'. In post 27, I quoted Tez3, to respond to her question as to the demographics of the United States. The quotes I "supplied" are the words of my colleagues on this message board.
> 
> ...



Michealward,

When I say you supplied a quote, I talk about the one from post #27, the one you supplied about Daniel Pipes. Here it is.



> As for the referenced Daniel Pipes. He should not be considered a credible source for information on Islam. He is a vitriolic Zionist. I believe he is on record as stating the the only way for Israel to secure itself, is to eliminate Islam. In October of 2001, he is quoted with "The increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews."



I dealt with how CAIR had edited that quote and then sent it out to be used against Mr Pipes.

I do not know where you got the quote, but it was not from this thread. And the original quote seems to have been edited by CAIR or one of its allies. That is the sort of thing they seem to do. I don't think people who would leave out the very important part I highlighted in post #29 of this thread can be trusted to do the right thing.

But much of what they say has been widely distributed and accepted. I found the Pipes quote as you gave it on many sites before I found one that gave the unedited version.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 30, 2007)

Mr. E the thread is all yours. Enjoy.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 30, 2007)

Mr. E is correct. I did reference Daniel Pipes. 

The reference comes directly, and verbatim, from Wikipedia, and I did not source it. I do so here and now. And I apologize for not so crediting Wikipedia in that post. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes

This reference was not clarified in this thread because of the admonishments I had received from the MartialTalk staff. When received, I stopped posting on this thread. 

Although it was hinted that there was a nefarious purpose to the elipses in the quote, a visit the Wikipedia entry on Mr. Pipes will demonstrate ~ right now, and from the time I used the original quote ~ that it was a direct 'copy and paste' from Wiki. 

As much of this thread has been given to the credibility of sources, and reading the material provided by those sources. I might hope that the curious would expend energy in understanding the reported facts of Mr. Pipes.


----------



## Mr. E (Aug 31, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Although it was hinted that there was a nefarious purpose to the elipses in the quote, a visit the Wikipedia entry on Mr. Pipes will demonstrate ~ right now, and from the time I used the original quote ~ that it was a direct 'copy and paste' from Wiki.



There was a nefarious purpose, but it was not on your part.

The quote you had is quite popular out on the internet. As I said, I found a whole lot of sites using the edited version before I found one that gave the full quote.

The section edited out shows that Mr Pipes clearly is worried about the radical, self- appointed leadership of Islam in America. So groups like CAIR who fit that description to a "T" are doing their best to ignore the real meaning and spread the false image of Mr Pipes as an Islamaphobe.

It is the same tactic as they did with the St Petersburg group. Rather than deal with the issues in a debate on the subject, they find it easier to scare people away from alternatives to their leadership and view of Islam by scaring folks with accusations about their rivals.


----------



## alfyed11 (Sep 1, 2007)

Islam is as Islam does. As hard as it is to accept the fact that Islam is spread by the sword, organizations like CAIR will always be around to call those who argue about it "unfair." 

Don't argue the facts if it puts you in an unflattering light -- silence the opposition by labeling them an "Islamaphobe" or even a "racist" (as if race were a factor). Keep labeling until you get one to stick, and then you won't have to defend a position that can't be honestly defended.

A quote from the Koran, which MUST be taken "out of context." If you were to believe it literally, you might not think the religion of peace was peaceful.

Sura (8:12) - _I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them._


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 1, 2007)

I find a bit of offense at the last post. Especially the use of the Koran.

If you read the Old Testament, you will find that religious texts that alternate between tales of peace and love and things so bloody it makes your hair stand on end are more the norm than the exception. Most texts have contradictions in them like that. But there are very few people calling themselves Christians today who feel that homosexuals should be stoned to death alongside women who have sex outside of marriange. Those that do cling to those beliefs are marginalized by the greater mass of moderate Christians and thier stronger drive to push their version only makes them look looney.

Christianity has a long history of killing other Christians in the name of God. And killing non-Christians came even easier. It is only when the various sects were forced to live side by side with others without trying to push their views on them through force that reform seems to have begun. For most of history, whoever was in charge could do as they liked. So when one sect who had be persecuted came to power, they did the same damn thing they had done to them on others. Western secular governments seem to come into fashion not for some great love of fellow man, but from fear that they might be the next group to be cast down from power. So they put limits on what one group could do to another group.

And it seems to have worked pretty well.

Most Christians seem to think that their religion is between them and God. If they think that adultery is against their religion, then they think that it means that _they_ should not engage in it and not that those caught in it should be stoned to death. I think this really only came into being after Christianity was forced into living in a secular society.

Today there are a lot of different views on Islam. In some places a woman can't even leave her house alone. In others, the head of the nation has been a female. The Muslims of Bosnia used to drink quite a bit last time I checked and there are nations even in the middle east where women do not where the veil.

You can't say that all Muslims are the same or have the same message. They pick and choose from their religious texts just as other religions do. But when you look at CAIR's message that Islam should take care of Islam, and you couple it with their rather radical view of the religion, you can tell they want others to abandon moderate Muslims so that they can use their greater drive and ruthlessness to take over.

Moderates that just want to be left alone to practice their religion as they see fit are not very driven or have a desire to organize. The radicals in CAIR with their belief that what they do comes from God's will are a lot more active. And of course, if it is God's will, then the end justifies the means. And there is very little they will hesitate to do.


----------



## alfyed11 (Sep 2, 2007)

Yes, that is exactly the response I'd expect for someone who hasn't read the Quran (Koran). Comparisons to Christianity or pretty much any other religion are ridiculous. And by the way, there is no country with a Muslim majority where Christians or any non-Muslims are allowed the same rights as Muslims. This includes Turkey, the one country where a Muslim majority has actually kept itself secular. Non Muslims pay the Jizya, which you may want to look up before you find yourself insulted. Consider that Egypt, Turkey, North Africa (Morocco, and more), were once Christian and coverted by the sword. Surrender and pay the Jizya, or, convert. 

The Koran is a war manual. If you don't think so, you haven't read the Koran. If you think Mohammed has the same stature as any other religious figure, you may want to read about the life of Mohammed, who was a warlord, slave keeper, murderer, rapist, and pedophile. This is all described in the Koran and the Hadith -- not from any other source -- this is from the actual Islamic holy books. 

As for any of the bible passages, show me the ones where:

The followers were encouraged to convert or kill those who did not want to be converted.

The penalty for leaving the "religion" is death.

There are passages specifically describing the way to rape captured women, and in fact, that it is acceptable (by Allah's will) to do so in front of their captive husbands.

Finally, if you see any passages about Jesus (or any other religious figure) keeping slaves, murdering people, or pedophilia being acceptable, let me know. I'm not interested in comparisons that will "make my hair stand on end." Mr E, with all due respects, read the Koran and get back to me. Let me show you a couple of more Sura from the Koran. And once again, consider how Jesus would be looked at today if it was discovered that he personally murdered hundreds, kept slaves, or had sex with 9 year old girls. Mohammed did all of this, and take it from an ex-Muslim, I've studied these texts more than most.

Sura (8:39) - _And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah_
_
From the Hadith:

Bukhari (80:753) - "The Prophet said, 'The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'"  

Bukhari (52:255) - The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.

Bukhari (41.598) - Slaves are property.  They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but rather used to pay off the debt.

Bukhari (62:137) - An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad's men after their husbands and fathers were killed.  The woman were raped with Muhammad's approval.

Bukhari (47.765) - A man is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl.  The prophet tells him that he would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).

Bukhari (72:734) - Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves.  This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad

* (Bukhari 84:57) "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
*_ 
Mr E, I know you and I have disagreed on stuff in the past. I have read what you said carefully, and I humbly request you read my response as well. I might mention that I may be a little closer to the subject matter than you are, but, I don't know your background. I'm leaving at the end a website which may be informative if you are willing to spend some time doing research.

www.thereligionofpeace.com


----------



## Mr. E (Sep 3, 2007)

Al,
It will take me a while to get through that last source you posted and the others. I will be back with a more informed reply, maybe, after I get through it. What you wrote does deserve more thought. However, I thought about what you wrote for a few hours already.

I think your points are valid if people did not interpet what their sacred texts say. But Christianity would not have everything from the Baptists to the Catholics if everyone was on the same page, so to speak, of the Bible. People put in what they want where it does not exist and ignore straight out restraints if they don't like it.

So I am more concerned with movements of interpetation like Wahabism more than Islam as a whole. Some texts say that God made man in his image, my observation is that the opposite it true. A person raised in a certain culture will look at religion based on the way he was raised. People do not think about religion, except to perhaps justify what they want.

Take the example of Aisha. If you ask 99 percent of the Muslims in America if it alright to sleep with a nine year old, they will express disgust that you even consider such an act. Yet Mohammed did consumate his marriage with Aisha after she had  her first menses at age nine.

Most American Muslims probably don't even think or are really aware of that. If you point it out to them and make them research and think before they respond, they will probably tell you that Aisha was married to the Prophet to cement a political alliance and not because Mohammed was in the market for six year olds. And he did not touch her for three years. But in the culture of the time is was _expected_ that a girl who had her menses would be married and start having kids. For Mohammed to refuse to fill his husbandly duties might have put strain on the reasons he married her.

That might  be the reason they justify his actions. It was expected of him from a society that was not as advanced as we are in our knowledge of what that does to children. So since the culture has changed, there is no longer a justification for having sex with a nine year old. And as one Muslim friend of mine said on another matter, if the Prophet refrained from something then lesser folks don't have an excuse to run counter to him. But there may be things that someone who talks to God can do that the rest of us can't.

But in any case, I think these people that give these excuses do so because that is what they want to believe. At the same time that American muslims would retch at the idea of a 40 plus man taking a nine year old as a bride, there are those in the middle east doing just that. People tend to have a certain outlook based on how they were raised, and that is largely based on where they were raised, and then find some way of justifying what they do with religion. It is just human nature.

So, again, I am not opposed to those that want to practice their religion so that it does not impact anyone else. It is those that preach an interpetation that states that everyone must follow what they think God wants the world to be that I stand against. And I do think that the typical American Muslim is more American in outlook than the guys in the middle east. And if they are given a chance to just live their lives in peace without groups like CAIR controlling their voice, then they may be the force that changes Islam from within.

I am going to go through some of your links now and maybe get back to you on this. Am I to assume that you are a ex-Muslim yourself and  so  I value your insight on this matter.


----------



## alfyed11 (Sep 3, 2007)

I think you bring up a good point Mr E, so let me see if I can respond without having someone (and I don't suspect the someone being you) simply pop a label on me.

First, yes, there are many Muslims, and in fact the majority living in the West, who don't agree with the "strict" interpretation of Islam that leads to, for lack of a better word, misery. I submit to you that when someone considers the word "strict" itself, it means something along the lines of "literal." That is, if you mention that the "bad" guys of any group are following a strict interpretation of a philosophy, it really indicates that they are following that philosophy to its most exact or specific meaning.

I submit to you therefore that as much as all those who follow Islam do not believe in murder, forced conversations, rape, etc (and how could they), if they were to follow the strict interpretation -- that is, that Mohammed was indeed the "perfect" man, his acts and revelations would therefore lead them to follow the perfect path, as the perfect man was following the word of God.

In short -- all Muslims are certainly not bad people! However, it might be argued that they really aren't following the Koran. It is when people get closer to the "letter of the law" that they begin to degrade a society into chaos. Islam as a major religion seems unique in this, and because of its strict interpretation, the worst of its followers are able to use the letter of the law to justify the worst of their natures. As every nation now Muslim was once Christian (or at a minimum a different Religion, Zoroaster comes to mind), I further submit that these nations didn't cheerfully convert, and I base this on hard historical facts and the Koran and Hadith themselves.

This gets much more complicated when we add social and economic factors to the puzzle. Frankly, the nature of Islam is not to enhance science or economies. If you look at every Muslim nation post-conquer (is that a real term), you'll see very limited expansion and influence of culture, simply due to the understanding that people are told that all they need to know is contained in the Koran itself. Exporting this philosophy without bloodshed is difficult, and in modern times, exporting this without technology to support the bloodshed is impossible. The best that can be done is to use the West's tools and technology, even its rules and freedoms against it.

One more point, and it supports your argument. I believe that many Muslims in Eastern countries have not read the Koran. I've learned this from hard experience, but I suggest if we were to look at nations like Afghanistan (and perhaps the worst example), we'll notice that the majority of the people are uneducated, and can't read or write -- they are dependant upon other people's interpretation of the Koran (strict?), and therefore can easily be manipulated into believing that the only religion that they are exposed to expouses actions which they would meet with disgust if they had the ability to analyze the inspiration for the actions.

Anyway -- the link I've sent to you provides more links at the top menu for some historical information and the strict interpretations of what has caused misery in Eastern nations and now, slowly but vividly, the Western world as well.

Yes, my family is still mostly Muslim, and I might add, they are very nice people and I love them! If they were to follow the "letter of the law" in the holy texts, through their own admission, they would do things that they consider horrible. The reason that my family is even here is that they needed to escape Islam -- unfortunately, however, they brought the Islam with them! Will our next generation, living here in America, one day decide that the Islam they are following isn't "strict" enough?

Sorry, more than I think anyone would like to know. Again, as I'm rather close to the subject matter, I again submit that I may at least have more of a reason (if not a right) to speak in harsh tones on this subject.

J Al-Fyed (call me Al) 

P.S. Thanks again for entertaining my opinion and at least looking at the site I sent to you. The link again for anyone who actually cares: www.thereligionofpeace.com


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Sep 3, 2007)

If you read the Old Testament, its full of passages about wiping out opposing villages/cities to the last woman and child. Didnt Lot sleep with his own daughters? Stone the homosexuals, stone the adulterers etc. The difference is you dont find any lage, mainstream religions of the Christian/Jewish variety that want to follow Old Testament law to the letter.


----------



## alfyed11 (Sep 4, 2007)

That isn't quite true -- that is, the Old Testament doesn't specifically call out to its contemporaries to do anything now, today. There are several passages in the books of the Bible that talk about wars and assorted skirmishes, and they aren't pretty. There is little if nothing in the way describing the murder or forced conversion of people as a matter of course. This is a crucial, crucial distinction. If the Bible was truly calling out for blood now, today, you'd be watching videos where people were getting their heads hacked off in the name of Jesus on MySpace or whatever. The fact is that you aren't seeing this. The reason is not because Christians or Jews, or Hindus, or Budhists, or...well, whatever...are less strict about their religion. It is because their religion doesn't abdocate this as a matter of course.

If you look at the passages in the Bible, you'll see references to war all right, and specific battles, against specific peoples. All very unpleasant. Normally it is against the Hittites, Jebusittes, etc. These are specific battles at specific times against specific peoples. Bad, yes. But period pieces. The fact that Islam is still killing in the name of God and on a grand scale is because the Koran and Hadith aren't suggesting specifics. They demand constants. A constant battle against all disbelievers until they are forced to believe. This doesn't end. It will keep on going until it succeeds. So far, it has captured a huge amount of the East.

Futher point. If you think Islam has been "hijacked" by "radicals," take a look at how many of these "radicals" exist. Look at all of the organizations we've found supporting terrorism. Look as close as London, where recent demonstrations called for the beheading of cartoonists. Huge populations in many countries are demanding death to disbelievers on a religous platform. Where are the moderate Muslims who should be marching against the radicals who have "stolen" a "peaceful" religion? Why are they silent? Is it possible that they quietly believe the radicals to be right? Have ALL of these Muslims misinterpreted the Koran? 

One more point -- I'm not trying to defend any other religion's holy books. Personally, I'm not exactly excited about joining another religion. I'm pointing out that this particular religion is dangerous to civilization. And again, Islam is as Islam does. Deny it or not, it's still there, and, coming here.

Here's an article about Bible vs. Koran violence. It is in response to a paper written against the Bible by a Muslim. I've read both of these very well.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Bible-Quran-Violence.htm


----------

