Plain Speaking From Fred Thompson

Although I haven't yet decided on a candidate for president, I have to admit that Fred Thompson is looking better and better to me. My main concerns are that our next president be very strong on combating Islamic terrorism, and that he be able to defend himself quickly and forcefully against the vitriol and smears from the left - which he is sure to encounter no matter what he does. It has been very frustrating to observe lies and smears from left-wing politicians and the mainstream media go unanswered, and Republican politicians acting as if there was something to be ashamed of for embracing conservative principles.

One thing that has already set Thompson apart from the declared Republican candidates is his willingness to give a direct answer about his beliefs on any issue. He has come out firmly against the amnesty-immigration bill now before Congress, and, unlike every other politician, says bluntly that Scooter Libby has been treated very unfairly and should not go to jail for what is, at heart, a political disagreement.

Ever since 9/11, conservatives who were paying attention have been warning about the activities of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and confounded by the Bush Administration's stance on this terrorist-supporting group. Now we find out that America's Muslims have indeed been paying attention - by departing from this fake civil-rights organization, CAIR, in droves. From the Fred Thompson report on ABC:

Good News about CAIR
The Fred Thompson Report, June 20, 2007

“I've talked before about the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- most recently because it filed that lawsuit against Americans who reported suspicious behavior by Muslims on a U.S. Airways flight. Better known just as CAIR, the lobbying group has come under a lot of scrutiny lately for its connections to terror-supporting groups. This time, though, The Washington Times has uncovered some very good news about the group.

For years, CAIR has claimed to represent millions of American Muslims. In fact, they claim to represent more Muslim in American than ... there are in America. This has alarmed Americans in general as the group often seems to be more aligned with our enemies than us -- which isn't surprising as it spun off from a group funded by Hamas. As you know, Hamas has been waging a terrorist war against Israel and calls for its total destruction. It also promises to see America destroyed. Nowadays, Hamas is busy murdering its Palestinian political rivals.

Even with this history, and CAIR's conspicuous failure to condemn Hamas by name, it has been treated as if represents Muslim Americans by our own government. The good news is that the financial support CAIR claims to have among American Muslims is a myth. We know this because The Washington Times got hold of the group's IRS tax records.

CAIR's dues-paying membership has shrunk 90 percent since 9/11 -- from 29,000 in 2000 to only 1,700 last year. CAIR's annual income from dues plunged from $733,000 to $59,000. Clearly, America's Muslims are not supporting this group -- and I'm happy to hear about it.

Of course, every silver lining seems to have a cloud; and this cloud is that CAIR's spending is running about $3 million a year. They’ve opened 25 new chapters in major cities across the country even as their dues shrank to a pittance. The question is; who’s funding CAIR?

CAIR's not saying. The New York Times earlier this year reported that the backing is from "wealthy Persian Gulf governments" including the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Obviously, we have a bigger problem here than the one with CAIR.” Fred Thompson

CAIR membership plummets

June 11, 2007, Washington Times

Membership in the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has declined more than 90 percent since the 2001 terrorist attacks, Audrey Hudson will report in Tuesday's editions of The Washington Times.

According to tax documents obtained by The Times, the number of reported members spiraled down from more than 29,000 in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006, a loss of membership that caused the Muslim rights group's annual income from dues to drop from $732,765 in 2000, when yearly dues cost $25, to $58,750 last year, when the group charged $35.

The organization instead is relying on about two dozen individual donors a year to contribute the majority of the money for CAIR's budget, which reached nearly $3 million last year.

Asked about the decline, Parvez Ahmed, CAIR board chairman, pointed to the number of individual donors to the organization.

"We are proud that our grass-roots support in the American Muslim community has allowed CAIR to grow from having eight chapters and offices in 2001 to having 33 today," Mr. Ahmed said.

The self-described civil liberties organization for Muslims seeks to portray "a positive image of Islam" through public relations and the media, but has instead alienated some by defending questionable accusations of discrimination.

Critics of the organization say they are not surprised membership is sagging, and that a recent decision by the Justice Department to name CAIR as "unindicted co-conspirators" in a federal case against another foundation charged with providing funds to a terrorist group could discourage new members.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, says the sharp decline in membership calls into question whether the organization speaks for 7 million American Muslims, as the group has claimed.

"This is the untold story in the myth that CAIR represents the American Muslim population. They only represent their membership and donors," Mr. Jasser said.

*****************************
Apparently, concerned Muslims in the United States have taken note of the real record and the real puposes of C.A.I.R. and have taken matters into their own hands by disassociating themselves from this terrorist-supporting organization. They understand what the American left does not understand; as I pointed out in a recent article on my weblog:

"One aspect of life that has been unfathomable to me is the continued support the left in America gives to CAIR, the Council for American-Islamic Relations. I recognize that their initial support came from the honest belief that CAIR was a civil rights organization dedicated only to protecting the rights of America’s Muslims, but, by now, even the most close-minded liberal must admit the terrorist activities of this organization.

First, one of CAIR’s founders made it clear that a main objective of CAIR is to impose the Sharia on the United States. We have gone over this before.

Then we have the case of CAIR 'cause célèbre' Sami Al-Arian, the former University of South Florida professor and the North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A news report of his trial this year had this to say:

"In a closed proceeding before a federal magistrate at U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Florida last week, Al- Arian pleaded guilty to Count Four of the indictment against him — a charge of conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The plea hearing was closed over the objections of the government and unsealed today. The guilty plea was accepted by U.S. District Court Judge James S. Moody, Jr. this afternoon. Sentencing was scheduled for May 1.

Al-Arian’s agreement with the government calls for a recommended prison sentence of 46 to 57 months in prison, based on a five-year maximum statutory sentence. Al-Arian, 48, who has been in custody since his arrest on Feb. 20, 2003, has agreed to stipulate to deportation to another country by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement once his prison sentence has ended. Al- Arian has lived in this country for approximately 30 years."

And now, just this week, two more terrorists with ties to CAIR have been convicted:

American citizens aided Hamas terror
Former CAIR member gets 7 years,
Imam in 'quiet' town pleads guilty

Posted: October 13, 2006
WorldNetDaily

"Two American citizens with ties to a major U.S. Islamic civil rights group faced judgment in court today for aiding the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, with one sentenced to seven years prison and the other pleading guilty.

Ghassan Elashi, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and a member of the founding board of directors of the Texas branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison for financial ties to a high-ranking terrorist and for making illegal computer exports to countries that back terrorism.

Meanwhile, an Atlanta Imam, Mohamed Shorbagi, pleaded guilty to providing material support to Hamas."


These are not just isolated cases, either, and some prominent Democrats including Senator Schumer of New York have denounced CAIR.

Cross-posted from Anti-CAIR-Net:

"Senior CAIR employee Randall Todd Royer, a/k/a “Ismail” Royer, pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia. He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons who sought training in a terrorist camp in Pakistan for the purpose of waging jihad against American troops in Afghanistan.

Royer’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed with CAIR.

CAIR's Director of Community Relations, Bassem Khafagi , was arrested by the United States due to his ties with a terror-financing front group. Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt.
Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR.

On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation, and a brother-in-law of Musa Abu Marzook, was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering. Ghassan Elashi committed his crimes while working at CAIR, and was found guilty.

CAIR Board Member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing, has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble unless it accepts Islam.

Rabih Haddad served as a CAIR Fundraiser. Haddad was co-founder of the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”). GRF was designated by the US Treasury Department for financing the Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations and its assets were frozen by the US Government on December 14, 2001."

So I ask again, how can any American support the continued existence of this organization? Would someone on the left please enlighten me?"

Islam Part III - Ban the Muslim Religion Say Some

There are serious efforts being made by serious people to introduce a Constitutional amendment that would ban the Muslim religion since it is a political movement, and not simply a religion, and since it seeks to destroy all opposition and impose Sharia on the western world. There is ample precedent for such an approach in that we have had the Smith Act that was aimed at combating the Communist Party in the United States. The Smith Act (1940) provided for the registration and fingerprinting of aliens living in the United States and declared it unlawful to advocate, teach, or belong to any group advocating the forceful overthrow of any government in the United States. The Smith Act was declared constitutional as long as it was applied to persons who committed an overt act towards the overthrow of our form of government.

A more moderate, but possibly more acceptable, but yet effective approach to the problem we face has been proposed by Lawrence Auster in his blog, “View From The Right”:

1. Declare that Islam is not just a religion but a political movement aimed at gaining power, and therefore the individual beliefs of individual Muslims matter less than the overall presence of Islam among us which strengthens the Islamic political agenda. Therefore (1) Islam is not a religion receiving protections under the First Amendment, and (2) Islam is not welcome in this country. Also declare that America renounces multiculturalism, the idea that all cultures are equal, and that it intends to go on existing as a distinct country with a distinct culture and way of life and will in the future adopt laws consistent with that purpose.

This declaration is the basis of everything that follows.

2. Cease all further immigration of Muslims, from whatever country, with only special individual exceptions for close relatives, etc.

3. Make resident aliens leave. This could start with singling out resident aliens with jihad associations, but then if deemed necessary be upped to include all Muslims resident aliens.

4. Make all Muslim illegal aliens leave.

5. Examine the beliefs, associations, statements, and actions of all naturalized Muslim citizens. Those who are jihad supporters will lose their citizenship and be made to go back to their country of origin.

6. Leave open as an option doing the same with natural born American citizens who are children of Muslim immigrants, as I discussed in my 2004 article at FP, “How to Defeat Jihad in America.”

7. Outlaw all mosques and Muslim schools and Muslim organizations that preach jihad and sharia or that disseminate literature advancing jihad and sharia.

8. Urge other non-Islamic countries to do the same, with the aim of initiating a vast worldwide Rollback of the Muslim “diaspora” back into the Muslim lands.

The fact that there is a serious discussion of this approach, and not just by the ‘crazies’ who also inhabit the internet, should be noted and acted upon by C.A.I.R and other Muslim organizations who deny Muslim terrorism and shield American imams preaching hatred and Sharia in the United States. If there is another horrendous incident of Muslim terrorism in our country like 9/11 (and who out there doesn’t believe that that is going to happen), we will certainly pass laws of this nature and carry them out with ferocity.

After all, this is what we face. American and European liberals don’t want you to see the following presentation, as they continue to downplay and ridicule the dangers we face. Please click here.

The Trouble With Islam, Part I of a Series

Charles Lindbergh and Senator Kennedy’s father, Joe Kennedy, changed their minds about Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany when their true nature became obvious. I guess I have to say that, reluctantly, I am changing my mind about the dangers posed to the future of America by Muslims who seem determined to impose their Sharia and their beliefs on the rest of us.

We cannot any longer ignore what has happened and is happening in Great Britain and in continental Europe as the tide of “peaceful” Islam rolls over their culture and their citizens. And it is happening here. The terrorist sponsorship by C.A.I.R., the denial of Islamic terrorism by other American Muslim groups, the large number of minor terrorist killings by Muslims here since 9/11, the attempt to impose the Sharia in Canada, the refusal of Muslim taxi drivers to carry passengers who offend them, the atrocious act by the so-called “flying Imams” and their subsequent lawsuit – all this and more have changed my mind and led me to come to believe that we need a policy concerning Islam in America that encourages assimilation and discourages the imposition of the Muslim culture on us. Islam is a political movement as well as a religion and should be treated as such.

I suppose this will surprise my readers who know that I have consistently tried to keep separate the Islamic terrorists and their barbaric acts from the neighbors I have here in America who just happen to be Muslim. Only several days ago I wrote a column in which I praised President Bush for his attempts to protect Muslim citizens and his insistence that we are not in a religious war, but if American Muslims want to continue to keep silent about the terrorism, if they want to keep supporting American Imams who preach hatred, if they want to keep maintaining practices abhorrent to American customs, and want to keep trying to impose their beliefs on their neighbors, I have to say,”enough”. I understand that most American Muslims pose no danger, and that they are intimidated by those who do, but I also understand that what is happening in Europe cannot be allowed to happen here.

We need also to give American Muslims who want nothing more than to be left alone to pursue the American dream some tools to fend off the radical Muslims and we need to give them better incentives to expose the jihadists.

I will say that it has been the speeches and public appearances of former Muslim women like Homa Arjomand and Ayaan Hirsi Ali which also helped push me over this edge. The following article by another courageous Muslim was another straw among the thousands that have been piling up:

SENSE OF UMMAH
The Trouble With Islam
Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence.

BY TAWFIK HAMID, Opinion Journal
Tuesday, April 3, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a short history of the Islamic world's decline, entitled "What Went Wrong?" Astonishingly, there was, among many Western "progressives," a vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis's implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.

But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.

These "progressives" frequently cite the need to examine "root causes." In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological "rootlets" of Islamism, the main tap root has a name--Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria--which happened in the last few decades--or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.

The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.

Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.

Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.
Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand--but so far haven't--that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."

All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.

Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.

Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.

More Encouraging Signs

While I have often commented on the horrendous activities of Islamic terrorists, I have also supported President Bush’s insistence that our war with the terrorists is not a religious war and that most Muslims are peaceful people who want the same things for their children that we all do. We have about 5 million* Muslim citizens in the U.S.A., and the President is president of all of us. On the other hand, it has been frustrating to observe the restrained efforts and silence of American Muslim organizations in condemning terrorism, and the actions of C.A.I.R. are very disturbing.

In the light of all this it was very encouraging last week to learn that an American Muslim group has decided to provide legal help to the passengers being sued by the infamous six ‘flying Imams’. Another encouraging development was the filing of a bill this week by Republican Congressman, Steve Pearce, that would end the nonsense of such suits:

Don’t Sue Americans Who Report Suspicious Terrorist Activity
2nd District Lawmaker calls on Congress to protect Americans trying to prevent terror plots

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, United States Congressman Steve Pearce introduced H.R. 1640 the “Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007.” If passed, this legislation would protect individuals from being sued for reporting suspicious activities to law enforcement and security personnel.

The language of the Act comes as a direct response to a recent incident in Minneapolis. As reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune,
The imams engaged in a variety of suspicious behaviors while boarding a US Airways flight, according to the airport police report. Some prayed loudly in the gate area, spoke angrily about the United States and Saddam, switched seats and sat in the 9/11 hijackers' configuration, and unnecessarily requested seatbelt extenders that could be used as weapons, according to witness reports and US Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader.

As a result of the aforementioned behavior, citizens contacted airline authorities and the pilot informed law enforcement to have the suspicious parties removed from the aircraft. The original incident occurred in November of 2006; now the group has filed suit against US Airways and the Minneapolis – St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission on 17 different charges. Included in the lawsuit as defendants, are “John Does” described as citizens who called authorities to report the suspicious behavior of the Imams.

Rep. Pearce commented on introducing the bill:
“It is a sad day in America when our own institutions of freedom are being used against us in the battle against terrorism. When I first heard about the lawsuit brought by the ‘imams’ in Minnesota, it was clear to me that this was an injustice against Americans who were simply trying to protect themselves. These brave citizens should be recognized as heroes for their efforts to report suspicious activity, particularly activity that has been associated with previous terror attacks.

“As Americans, we must not allow ourselves to be bullied by individuals who seek to disrupt our way of life. We can not allow the sympathizers of terrorism to make Americans wonder if they could be sued before reporting possible terrorist activity. Whether it is an intimidation tactic or a full scale attack, Americans have the right and responsibility to protect themselves and their fellow citizens. I introduced this legislation to protect Americans and keep all citizens alert and vocal as they serve on the front line in our battle against terrorism here in America.”

Rep. Pearce was joined by 10 cosponsors in introducing this legislation.

*estimates of the Muslim population of the U.S.A. vary widely

Plan To Impose Muslim Sharia In US Resurfaces

Most Americans have only recently learned of the Sharia, the Muslim system of laws under which thieves have their hands cut off, adulterers can be stoned to death, and homosexuals can be beaten and even executed. Although recently there was a serious attempt to impose the Sharia in Canada (which failed), few Americans know that Muslim organizations like C.A.I.R. wish to impose this system in the United States, and even fewer know that Muslim organizations have been attempting to accomplish this for years. The following was recently published in “The American Muslim”, but it surprised us to learn that it is a reprint of an article first printed here in 1993.

The American Muslim (Excerpt)
February 4, 2007

Native American Courts: Precedent for an Islamic arbitral system *
Issa Smith

“In the United States today, there is a system of courts which is just outside of the federal and state court systems, known as the American Indian Tribal Courts. The Tribal Courts deal with criminal, civil and family court issues, and have their own lawyers, judges, and court officials. The Muslim Community can learn from the experience of the American Indian Tribal Court System as we attempt to implement Muslim Family Law in North America.

I will use the terms “Indian” or “American Indian” to describe the descendants of the people indigenous to North America, who are also sometimes referred to as “Native Americans.” The complex and confusing legal relationships between the United States and the American Indians begins with the U.S. Constitution which in Article 1, section 8 states: “The Congress shall have the power...to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Since the constitution was accepted and implemented in 1789, Indian tribes have been treated as “quasi-sovereign governments”, dependent on the United States for support and protection….

Although the Muslim community in North America is vastly different from the Indian community, I feel that in developing a plan for the implementation of Muslim family law, we can in some ways imitate the paradigm of the tribal court system and its supporting network. In particular, I recommend that as a first step, supporting organizations dealing with Islamic family law be established immediately. A professional association of Muslims in the law field (of whatever specialty) is a must. A law school students’ support group should be formed, and Muslim youth should be encouraged to enter this field.

A second step would be to establish institutes in the U.S. which can supplement legal education with courses in Islamic family law. At the same time, pressure should be put on law schools to include courses in Shariah taught by Muslims. An idea suggested in several quarters and being developed by the American Muslim Council, is the moot court where students and legal experts can act out Muslim family court scenarios.

There is a serious lack of Muslim social service agencies. Muslim Family Services in Brooklyn, New York is one of the oldest and best-known—an example to be emulated elsewhere. These organizations will have to be in place when we start asking for control of our family court issues.

The process of implementing Muslim family law will not be accomplished overnight. Changes of their type take place very slowly in American society, and our community is far from being prepared for this tak. I commend the continental council of Masajid for organizing this conference, and bringing together so many workers and thinkers. I pray to Allah the real decisions are made here that can be implemented by those ready to work. However, I strongly urge that consideration be given to political realities and the sensitivities of the American public. Such a radical change in American law—allowing Muslims to take control over their family law issues - must be initiated from the indigenous Muslim community here in the United States. To have it seem that this initiative is originating from overseas or from organizations financed overseas, would create a very negative impression that would likely destroy this effort.

Originally published in the print edition of The American Muslim April-June Spring 1993” The American Muslim

Since, in addition to the primitive practices mentioned above, women have virtually no rights under Muslim law, the support that the American far left gives to Muslim causes is baffling to many Americans.

Welcome Aboard, Senator Boxer, You CAIR

For years, many of us have been warning about the true nature of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and that it is a terrorist-support organization and not a group dedicated only to defending the civil rights of America’s Muslims. As a minimum, CAIR has been unabashedly dedicated to the imposition of Sharia law in the United States and to pooh-poohing the idea that Muslims took part in 9/11.

Unfortunately, over the years, it has become clear that the reactions to disclosures about CAIR have often broken down along political fault lines – with conservatives generally accepting and understanding the true role of CAIR, and liberals maintaining that it is merely a misunderstood civil rights group. It is just this kind of head-in-the-sand thinking that motivated Judge Koeltl to sentence Lynne Stewart to a ridiculous period of 28 months for aiding and abetting the terrorist activities of the blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman (who is serving a long sentence for plotting the 1993 Trade Towers bombing). The thinking is, if you say you are for protecting someone’s civil rights, you can’t possibly be a really bad person or group.

I am writing this today, the day after Christmas, because something has happened that might be a breakthrough in the general level of understanding of the nature of and the danger posed by CAIR. The following announcement was made last week:

Source: JihadWatch.com, December 23, 2006

“(Coral Springs, FL) Americans Against Hate (AAH), a civil rights organization and terrorism watchdog group, appreciates the decision made by United States Senator Barbara Boxer to rescind the award her office had presented to the Executive Director of CAIR-Sacramento Basim Elkarra.

Both CAIR and Elkarra have exhibited the type of extremist behavior that is not worthy of awards or accolades. Former officials from CAIR are currently in prison, serving time for terrorist-related crimes involving Hamas and Al-Qaeda. In fact, CAIR can thank Mousa Abu Marzook, the second in command of Hamas today, for its very existence.

Unfortunately, too many in America's government, media and religious institutions have made CAIR out to be a legitimate group, rarely mentioning its numerous ties to terrorism. AAH and its subdivision CAIR Watch were created to expose CAIR and others like it for having these ties.” JihadWatch.com

If Senator Barbara Boxer, one of the most left-wing members of Congress, has reached this decision, there is hope for those of us who have been struggling for years to warn the American people that we are engaged in a war to save Western Civilization, whether we like it or not. That war is being lost in Europe and is being undermined here by well-meaning souls who seem to think that our President is a greater threat to our freedoms than those who routinely butcher women and homosexuals and anyone else who disagrees with them. They came within a year of gaining nuclear weapons in Iraq, and they seem to be getting close in Iran.

Katherine Kersten: The real purpose behind the imam publicity blitz

By Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune

"On Dec. 1, a curious report on the grounded-imams incident at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport appeared on the website of the Iranian Quran News Agency.

The report quoted extensively from Madhi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation. The foundation is the American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, "the world's most influential Islamic fundamentalist group," according to the Chicago Tribune.

Bray's initial statement about the incident had an all-American, see-you-in-court ring. He demanded "large financial compensation for the imams," adding, "We want US Airways and any other airline displaying this type of behavior against Muslims to be hit where it hurts, the pocketbook."

The report echoed statements made by the imams themselves. Omar Shahin, their spokesman, has portrayed the incident in a way that's consistent with a lawsuit and a public relations offensive. He's called for a Jesse Jackson-style boycott of US Airways, and applied classic civil-rights rhetoric to the incident: "This is prejudice; this is obvious discrimination," the Star Tribune quoted him as saying. "I cannot change the color of my skin," he told Newsweek.

But the report on the Iranian website, which has appeared on a variety of Muslim websites worldwide, had a larger primary focus. After the imams incident, it quoted Bray as saying Muslims want "new, broad-sweeping legislation that will extract even larger financial and civil penalties for any airline that participates in racial and religious profiling."

The report is optimistic that Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, will lend his support to new legislation. Ellison, it says, has expressed his opposition to "such racial and religious profiling." Ellison, through a spokesman, declined to comment.

One piece of legislation in the works is the End Racial Profiling Act. It is an important priority of Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, whose district includes one of the largest Muslim populations in the country. Conyers introduced the bill in 2004 and 2005, but it went nowhere.

Now the alignment of forces may be changing. Conyers will probably be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes next month.

Nancy Pelosi, who called herself a "proud" cosponsor of the Profiling Act in 2004, is the incoming House speaker. And in January, Ellison, who represents the district where the imams incident occurred, will take his seat in Congress.

The act, although it doesn't as yet impose large penalties, would bar any federal, state or local law enforcement agency from "relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities." That would include questioning, searches and seizures.

One of the act's central features is its definition of illegal profiling. Under it, if airport security personnel question passengers who are disproportionately Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent, this alone would constitute a presumptive violation of the law. Law enforcement agencies would bear the burden of proving that discrimination was not the cause.
What would the effect of such a law be?

"A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety," said Daniel Horan of the Los Angeles Police Department in an interview. He worked at the Los Angeles airport on profiling-related issues for 6 years.

In the past few weeks the public relations campaign for the Profiling Act has moved into high gear. On Tuesday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations advised American Muslims to beware of the dangers of "flying while Muslim." In light of recent allegations of "airport profiling," it said, the council has set up a toll-free hotline for pilgrims traveling to Mecca for the hajj, or annual pilgrimage, who believe that their rights have been violated.

The End of Racial Profiling Act has languished until now. What did it need to reinvigorate it? New congressional leadership, and that's coming in January. But it needed something else in this media age: a high-profile incident to jump-start it.

What better than the media circus at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on Nov. 20?" Katherine Kersten

Some American Muslims (and groups like CAIR) complain bitterly and often that Muslims are unfairly targeted in anti-terrorism efforts. Do they not realize that attempts to handcuff security operations like those mentioned above will lead to the conclusion that American Muslims want to make it easier for terrorists to strike? Such a law will push moderates like me into joining the distrust-all-Muslims-crowd.

It must be difficult to be a Muslim-American in today’s environment. German-Americans and Japanese-Americans faced similar problems here during World War II. Many of them responded by actively joining the war effort. What are you doing except complaining?

Some Developments On Our 6 Muslim Imams and Their Setup Attempt

Marshals decry imams' charges (Excerpt)
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 29, 2006

Air marshals, pilots and security officials yesterday expressed concern that airline passengers and crews will be reluctant to report suspicious behavior aboard for fear of being called "racists," after several Muslim imams made that charge in a press conference Monday at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Six imams, or Muslim holy men, accused a US Airways flight crew of inappropriately evicting them from a flight last week in Minneapolis after several passengers said the imams tried to intimidate them by loudly praying and moving around the airplane. The imams urged Congress to enact laws to prohibit ethnic and religious "profiling."

Federal air marshals and others yesterday urged passengers to remain vigilant to threats.

"The crew and passengers act as our additional eyes and ears on every flight," said a federal air marshal in Las Vegas, who asked that his name not be used. "If [crew and passengers] are afraid of reporting suspicious individuals out of fear of being labeled a racist or bigot, then terrorists will certainly use those fears to their advantage in future aviation attacks."....

The passengers and flight crew said the imams prayed loudly before boarding; switched seating assignments to a configuration used by terrorists in previous incidents; asked for seat-belt extensions, which could be used as weapons; and shouted hostile slogans about al Qaeda and the war in Iraq.

Flight attendants said three of the six men, who did not appear to be overweight, asked for the seat-belt extensions, which include heavy metal buckles, and then threw them to the floor under their seats.

Robert MacLean, a former federal air marshal, expressed the fear yesterday that the situation "will make crews and passengers in the future second-guess reporting these events, thus compromising the aircraft's security out of fear of being labeled a dogmatist or a bigot, or being sued." Audrey Hudson

*********************************

Imams Gone Wild
By Paul Sperry
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 30, 2006

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is demanding Congress investigate US Airway's removal last week of six imams from one of its flights. The Muslim-rights group claims the imams, who were behaving suspiciously, posed no threat.

It's "very, very inappropriate to treat religious leaders that way," a spokesman fumed.

According to CAIR, imams are as harmless as Buddhist monks and deserve no less respect. Tell that to flight attendant Kimberly Banducci.

According to police reports I've obtained, the Delta Air Lines veteran was assaulted by a Muslim cleric in a bizarre attack aboard a flight from Miami International Airport three years ago. The wild scene, which involved federal air marshals and local police, was never reported in the media.

Here's what happened: On Oct. 23, 2003, Sheikh Ahmed Hamman Mahmoud Hamman claimed he needed assistance as he boarded Delta Flight 1586. Banducci, who was flight coordinator that day, escorted the Egyptian imam, dressed in a flowing robe, to his seat. As she helped him get seated, Hamman remarked in heavily accented English how good she smelled and asked her name.

As she began to recoil from the bearded man's passes, he suddenly grabbed her face with one hand and wouldn't let go. Banducci told him he was hurting her and asked for help from passengers in the immediate area. She was able to pull away, but then His Most Holiness grabbed both her breasts and again would not release his grip. Banducci yelled at him to let go, but he refused, squeezing even harder. Only after she screamed for help and two air marshals broke cover did the man back down.

As authorities questioned him, Hamman acted like he couldn't speak any English. The Miami-Dade Police Department took him into custody where he was booked the next day for felony battery, the police report says. Delta did not press charges, however, and kept the incident from the press.

US Airways, which has been flooded with positive calls from customers for its stand against the six obnoxious imams, is poised to take over Delta in a proposed merger, making it the nation's largest carrier.

A local Muslim leader bailed the violent groper sheikh out of jail. Authorities say a man named Sofian Abdelaziz (aka Sofian Zakout, aka Sofian Abdelaziz-Zakout, aka Sofian Zakkout) representing the American Muslim Association of North America, or AMANA, posted bond for the 35-year-old Hamman, who was visiting Florida during Ramadan. Abdelaziz-Zakkout, a Kuwaiti native, was his trip sponsor.

He's also a radical Islamic activist who is a close personal friend of the notorious Shukrijumahs of South Florida, a Saudi family whose son, Adnan, is an al-Qaida operative thought to be in line to head an encore attack on America. The FBI calls him "the next Mohamed Atta." His late father was a local Wahhabi imam on the Saudi payroll.

Not surprisingly, Abdelaziz-Zakkout recently defended an accused al-Qaida confederate of Adnan Shukrijumah at his trial. He also opposed the U.S. strikes on Afghanistan after 9/11, and the U.S. assassination of al-Qaida terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq.

Back to the Saintly Six imams kicked off US Airways Flight 300. Their ringleader Omar Shahin whined, "What happened to us is terrible." No, what happened on 9/11 is terrible, and airlines and their passengers will be damned if they'll tolerate any more treacherous tricks from packs of truculent Muslim men on board their flights.

Shahin knows of such shenanigans. At his former mosque in Tucson, Ariz., he ministered to two college students removed from an America West flight after twice attempting to open the cockpit. The FBI suspected it was a "dry run" for the 9/11 hijackings, according the 9/11 Commission Report. One of the students, Hamdan al-Shalawi, had trained for attacks in Afghanistan, the report says. The other, Muhammed al-Qudhaieen, became a material witness in the 9/11 investigation.

Even so, the pair filed racial-profiling suits against America West, now part of US Airways. Defending them was none other than Shahin, the public face of the Slighted Six imams who returned to the US Airways ticket counter at the Minneapolis airport to scold agents before the cameras, and then staged a protest at Reagan International Airport in Washington.

In an "Arizona Republic" interview after the 9/11 attacks, he acknowledged once supporting Osama bin Laden through his hardline Saudi-backed mosque in Tucson. FBI investigators believe bin Laden operated a cell there. Hani Hanjour, the hijacker who piloted the plane that hit the Pentagon, attended the Tucson mosque along with bin Laden's one-time personal secretary, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Bin Laden's former chief of logistics was president of the mosque before Shahin took over.

"These people don't continue to come back to Arizona because they like the sunshine or they like the state," said FBI agent Kenneth Williams. "Something was established there, and it's been there for a long time." And Shahin, a native of Jordan, appears to be in the middle of it.

Shahin now heads the North American Imams Federation, which is affiliated with the innocuous-sounding American Open University, where he teaches Islamic studies. The radical Islamic school, known by law enforcement as "Wahhabi Online," has raised a number of red flags at the FBI, including the fact that:

-- It's founder and chairman, Jaafar Idris, is a Sudanese radical on the Saudi payroll who was recently deported for visa fraud and spreading extremism in America.

-- A co-founder, Salah As-Sawi, is a professor at Al-Azhar in Egypt, a bastion of the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, American Open University is a fully accredited satellite campus of Al-Azhar. As-Sawi worked with Idris at the Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences in Washington, a propaganda center set up by the Saudi Embassy to spread Wahhabism in America. It was raided after 9/11 and is still under surveillance by federal authorities.

-- Alumni of the "university" include convicted members of the Virginia Jihad Network.

-- The school has received funding from a suspected al-Qaida front that has expressly advocated suicide attacks and using airliners as weapons. The Islamic Assembly of North America, or IANA, is bankrolled by the Saudi religious minister who stayed at the same Washington-area hotel as the hijackers the night before they attacked the Pentagon. (He feigned a heart attack when FBI agents tried to question him and was subsequently evacuated with other Saudi officials on White House-approved escape flights after 9/11.)

A former CAIR official, Bassem Khafagi, headed IANA. He pleaded guilty to terror-related charges and was deported.

CAIR, which is listed as a partner organization to Shahin's North American Imams Federation, insists American imams are peace-loving "patriots."

Oh? Would that include Omar Abdul-Rahman, the blind sheikh serving life for plotting to blow up several New York landmarks? Or Imam Ali al-Timimi, a native Washingtonian, also behind bars for soliciting local Muslims to kill fellow Americans? Or fugitive cleric Anwar Aulaqi, the U.S.-born imam who prepared some of the 9/11 hijackers for martyrdom?

How about imams Mohammed al-Hanooti and Siraj Wahhaj (a CAIR and NAIF board member), both unindicted co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspiracy?

Perhaps CAIR is referring to other imams in New York who were recently busted for buying shoulder-fired missiles. Or the one in Lodi, Calif., who planned to build an al-Qaida terror camp there, and on and on.

Yup, they all wear halos all right. Or is that orange jumpsuits? Oh, that's right, they're all so misunderstood and mistreated. Boo-hoo, somebody call the wha-a-a-a-ambulance. Paul Sperry

A Profiling In Courage (or six geese a-laying and a partridge in a pear tree)

A Profiling In Courage
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 11/22/2006

Homeland Security: Kudos to US Airways. Risking fines and a boycott, it did the right thing this week by removing a group of Muslim men from a flight to protect its crew and passengers.

By most accounts, the six bearded men were behaving suspiciously at a time when airports were on high alert for sky terror during the holidays. "There were a number of things that gave the flight crew pause," an airline spokesman said. According to witnesses and police reports, the men:

• Made anti-American statements.
• Made a scene of praying and chanting "Allah."
• Asked for seat-belt extensions even though a flight attendant thought they didn't need them.
• Refused requests by the pilot to disembark for more screening.

Also, three of the men had only one-way tickets and no checked baggage.

Police had to forcibly remove the men from the flight, whereupon they were taken into custody. A search found no weapons or explosives, and they were released to continue on their journey.

Within hours, the men enlisted a Muslim-rights group to make a stink in the press, insisting they were merely imams returning home from an Islamic conference in Minneapolis. They say they were "harassed" because of their faith.

But were they victims or provocateurs?

All six claim to be Americans, so clearly they were aware of heightened security. Surely they knew that groups of Muslim men flying together while praying to Allah fit the modus operandi of the 9/11 hijackers and would make a pilot nervous. Throw in anti-U.S. remarks and odd demands about seat belts, and they might as well have yelled, "Bomb!"

Yet they chose to make a spectacle. Why? Turns out among those attending their conference was Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who will be the first Muslim sworn into Congress (with his hand on the Quran). Two days earlier, Ellison, an African-American convert who wants to criminalize Muslim profiling, spoke at a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim-rights group that wasted no time condemning US Airways for "prejudice and ignorance."

CAIR wants congressional hearings to investigate other incidents of "flying while Muslim." Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Con-yers, D-Mich., has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.

While it's not immediately clear whether the incident was a stunt to help give the new Democratic majority cover to criminalize airport profiling, it wouldn't be the first time Muslim passengers have tried to prove "Islamophobia" — or test nerves and security.

Two years ago a dozen Syrian men caused panic aboard a Northwest Airlines flight by passing bags to each other as they used the lavatory. As the plane prepared to land, they rushed to the back and front of the plane speaking in Arabic.

Then there's the case of Muhammed al-Qudhaieen and Hamdan al-Shalawi, two Arizona college students removed from an America West flight after twice trying to open the cockpit. The FBI suspected it was a dry run for the 9/11 hijackings, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. One of the students had traveled to Afghanistan. Another became a material witness in the 9/11 investigation.

Even so, the pair filed racial-profiling suits against America West, now part of US Airways. Defending them was none other than the leader of the six imams kicked off the US Airways flight this week.

Turns out the students attended the Tucson, Ariz., mosque of Sheikh Omar Shahin, a Jordan native. Shahin has been the protesters' public face, even returning to the US Airways ticket counter at the Minneapolis airport to scold agents before the cameras.
In an Arizona Republic interview after 9/11, he acknowledged once supporting Osama bin Laden through his mosque in Tucson. FBI investigators believe bin Laden set up a base in Tucson.

Hani Hanjour, who piloted the plane that hit the Pentagon, attended the Tucson mosque along with bin Laden's onetime personal secretary, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Bin Laden's ex-logistics chief was president of the mosque before Shahin took over.

"These people don't continue to come back to Arizona because they like the sunshine or they like the state," said FBI agent Kenneth Williams. "Something was established there, and it's been there for a long time." And Shahin appears to be in the middle of it.

CAIR asserts the imams are peace-loving patriots. "It's inappropriate to treat religious leaders that way," a spokesman said.

Yeah, they all wear halos. Omar Abdul-Rahman, a blind sheikh, is serving a life term for plotting to blow up several New York landmarks. Imam Ali al-Timimi, a native Washingtonian, is also behind bars for soliciting local Muslims to kill fellow Americans. Imams in New York were recently busted for buying shoulder-fired missiles. Another in Lodi, Calif., planned an al-Qaida terror camp there.

We could go on and on. Imams or not, US Airways did right by its customers. Shahin is calling on Muslims to boycott the airline; that might actually work in its favor. US Airways has been flooded with calls from Americans saying it just became the safest airline.

****************************************

Power Line
November 24, 2006 (Excerpt)

"CAIR wants congressional hearings to investigate other incidents of "flying while Muslim." Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.

While it's not immediately clear whether the incident was a stunt to help give the new Democratic majority cover to criminalize airport profiling, it wouldn't be the first time Muslim passengers have tried to prove "Islamophobia" — or test nerves and security.”