web analytics
April 18, 2014 / 18 Nisan, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘CAIR’

CAIR Attacks ‘Honor Diaries’ Film as Anti-Muslim

Tuesday, April 1st, 2014

The film “Honor Diaries” provides women the opportunity to tell their stories about the misogynistic practice known as “honor violence” in their native culture. The film – not the practice -  has been attacked by certain Muslim civil rights groups, especially the organization known as CAIR – the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The film follows nine women whose lives have been affected by what is known as the “honor culture” in certain Islamic cultures. Practices such as female genital mutilation, honor violence, honor killings and forced marriage at young ages make up the panoply of horrors these women or their family members experienced first hand.

Honor violence, according to the AHA Foundation, is

a form of violence against women committed with the motive of protecting or regaining the honor of the perpetrator, family, or community.  Victims of honor violence are targeted because their actual or perceived behavior is deemed to be shameful or to violate cultural or religious norms.  Conduct such as resisting an arranged marriage, seeking a divorce, adopting a Western lifestyle and wearing Western clothing, and having friends of the opposite sex have resulted in honor violence.

Information in the film “Honor Diaries” is provided mostly through the stories of the nine women, and much of what they describe happens in Muslim majority countries. One chilling statistic: on average, 13 women and girls are killed every day in the name of “honor.”

But there also dire warnings about honor violence happening in the United States as well. Some of the statistics are staggering. Approximately 150,000 to 200,000 American girls are at risk for female genital mutilation – frequently misleadingly referred to as female circumcision. It is estimated that approximately 1,500 forced marriages take place each year in the United States, and approximately 3,000 honor attacks take place in the United Kingdom every year.

The film opened on March 8, International Women’s Day.

The backlash against the film has been so intense that some schools and other venues have already succumbed and canceled scheduled screenings. This happened at the University of Michigan at Dearborn last week.

It is hard even for an organization such as CAIR to publicly defend the abuse of women that is described in the film. Instead, CAIR vilifies the Clarion Project, which produced the film, because “Jews produced the film,” as CAIR explained in a letter to Fox News, which ran a segment about the film.

Clarion produced other films which deal with unsavory aspects of Muslim culture. Those films, “Obsession,” “Relentless” and “Iranium,” were similarly criticized by certain defenders of the Muslim faith, although all included interviews with people widely considered to be “moderate Muslims,” such as the Arab Israeli journalist Khaled abu Toameh, and the American Muslim physician Zuhdi Jasser.

Similarly, the “Honor Diaries” is certainly critical of a facet of Muslim culture, but the point of the film is to prevent more violence to Muslim women, not to merely criticize the perpetrators.

A trailer for the film can be seen at Clarion’s website, at which there is also more information about “Honor Violence.”

Muslims Want Halal Food in NYC Schools – Kosher Not Option

Thursday, March 27th, 2014

Proposed legislation was introduced into New York City Council to require that the city’s public schools provide Islamic-compliant food – halal – as an option in the cafeterias. The New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) joined forces with council member Rafael L. Espinal, Jr. (Brooklyn) to support Resolution 54 at a press conference on the steps of New York City Hall on Wednesday, March 26.

Fourteen other city councilmembers co-sponsored Espinal’s Resolution.

The Resolution goes into explicit detail about what Islamic-observant students are permitted to eat and what they must avoid eating, as well as stating who made those determinations. To wit:

Whereas, The practice of Islam is determined by the Islamic teachings as guided by the holy book Quran and the Hadith, and sayings of the Prophet Mohammad, which includes observing dietary laws; and Whereas, Islamic dietary laws delineate foods that are halal, meaning lawful or permitted, and those that are haram, meaning not permitted; and Whereas, Haram foods include pork and its by-products, meat and poultry not slaughtered according to the Islamic dietary law, alcohol and foods prepared with and containing alcohol, foods containing blood and blood by-products, and foods containing whey prepared with non-microbial enzyme, rennet, animal shortening, monoglycerides and diglycerides from an animal source, sodium stearoyl lactylate, and L-cysteine.

The proposed Resolution concedes that there is no accurate way to determine how many New York City schoolchildren are Muslim, and of those who are Muslim, how many observe strict halal guidelines. The best estimate they have is that approximately 12 percent of the school system’s children are Muslim.

Undeterred by the lack of hard information, the legislators pointed to the Detroit public school system where 35 percent of the students are estimated to be Muslim. In Detroit, the school district began a halal pilot program in 2001 which has expanded to 35 schools in the district.

In addition to pointing to Detroit as a school district where such a program was implemented, the legislators turned to another argument to bolster their demands.

This angle is the one best characterized as “you don’t want school kids going hungry do you?” You see, unless a halal option is offered, the unknown number of New York City’s schoolchildren who can only eat halal food will suffer eating either the vegetarian option that is already offered in the school system, or they will have to bring their own food from home. If the food is brought from home, it probably won’t still be hot by lunch time.

To shore up this argument, the director of operations for CAIR’s New York district, Sadyia Khalique, spoke at Wednesday’s press conference about the hardship she suffered growing up in the New York City school system without a halal food option.

“Growing up in New York City, I, along with many Muslim students, had to struggle during lunch with not having a proper halal meal for the day. The percentage of Muslim children in public schools is growing, and too many children are denied the nutritional benefits lunch would provide because of religious dietary restrictions. As a community, we have to make sure our children receive the best education in environments in which their religious beliefs and practices are respected. No child should leave a lunchroom or enter a classroom hungry.”

Of course, there are other students in the New York City public schools who have religious dietary requirements. That would be Jewish observant children. The New York City public schools don’t offer kosher lunches and to date, no Jewish groups have marched themselves into the New York City council chambers demanding that there be a kosher food option.

Convictions Upheld of Muslim Students Who Harrassed Oren at Irvine

Wednesday, March 5th, 2014

On February 8, 2010, Muslim students interrupted a speech being given at the University of California at Irvine by Michael Oren who was then the Israeli ambassador to the United States. The students didn’t just shout out their message once. They repeatedly derailed the talk Oren was trying to give so that what was supposed to have been a one hour speech ended up being only twelve minutes long.

The students shouted ugly abuse at the Israeli ambassador, accusing him of being an accomplice to genocide and propagating murder.

The situation was so extreme that criminal charges were brought against eleven students, who became known as the “Irvine 11.”

Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas, who was in the courtroom when the verdict was read, said the students’ behavior amounted to censorship and “thuggery.”

“In a civilized society,” he said, “we cannot allow lawful assemblies to be shut down by a small group of people using the heckler’s veto.”

When the verdict was entered by the jury, on September 23, 2011, 10 of the students were sentenced to three years of probation, 56 hours of community service and fines. Each was convicted of one misdemeanor count of conspiring to disrupt Oren’s Feb. 8, 2010, speech and a second count for disrupting it. The charges against the 11th student were dropped, pending his completing a term of community service.

The response from the community was swift and harsh, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“Absolutely unbelievable,” Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, said of the verdict. “I believe the heart of America has died today.

“This is clearly an indication that Muslims are permanent foreigners, at least in Orange County.”

The students and their supporters claimed the students free speech “rights” were violated. Apparently the irony was lost on them that the charges were brought against them for refusing to allow an invited guest to speak.

In a ruling dated last Wednesday but delivered Monday, March 3 to attorneys, a California appellate court panel ruled Ali Mohammad Sayeed, Mohamed Mohy-Eldeeen Abdelgany, Khalid Akari, Aslam Abbasi Akhtar, Joseph Tamim Haider, Taher Herzallah, Shaheen Nassar, Mohammad Anas Qureashi, Osama Shabaik and Asaad Traina were convicted Sept. 23, 2011, because the intent of the law they broke was clear. (Hakim Nasreddine Kebir accepted a plea deal from the court and had charges against him dismissed in exchange for performing 40 hours of community service.)

The judges said the defendants’ intent was proven by the exchange amongst them of email messages, as each student stood, in turn, to shout out and interfere with Oren’s speech.

An attorney for the students, Jacqueline Goodman, said she planned to appeal this ruling to the Fourth District Court of Appeals in Santa Ana, according to a local blog.

When the convictions were first announced following the trial, a Muslim advocate claimed the decision to bring charges against the students would immortalize them.

“When history books are written and this case comes to its final conclusion … the Irvine 11 will stand alongside other civil rights heroes,” said Ameena Qazi, deputy executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Los Angeles.

Some content for this article was provided by JTA.

Noted Author Reading The Jewish Press Detained at JFK

Thursday, February 6th, 2014

Perhaps it is a coincidence that it happened to be The Jewish Press that caught the attention of security officials at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York on Wednesday afternoon, Feb. 5, but that fact certainly caught the attention of The Jewish Press reporters.

Phyllis Chesler, one of the doyennes of the feminist movement, professor emerita of psychology and women’s studies at CUNY, ardent Zionist, and author, most recently of An American Bride in Kabul, which won the National Jewish Book Award for memoir this year, was traveling from New York to Florida Wednesday afternoon.

Chesler’s flight was delayed due to the ice storm. Still, she felt somewhat lucky, as most of the flights were cancelled.

As she waited, Chesler pulled out the latest edition of The Jewish Press, which she had with her.

Chesler noticed that as soon as she took out the paper, one of the security agents looked at her sharply. He came over and asked to see her newspaper. After looking at the cover, the agent then took The Jewish Press and brought it over to another security agent. The two agents then had a discussion, apparently about the newspaper and about Chesler. She was then told to open her luggage, which the agents proceeded to search.

While Chesler’s luggage was being rifled through and she was being interrogated, she noticed another woman stride unmolested past her and the security agents, and disappear on through to her destination.

The woman who sailed through without being stopped was dressed in a niqab. The niqab is an Islamic head covering which covers a woman’s entire face except for the eyes.

niqab.jpg Chesler recounted that she saw no one in security ask this other woman – whose face was impossible to see – to lift her veil so that they might check her facial features against her identifying documents. The unidentifiable woman went right past security, no questions asked.

Chesler’s interrogation ended after the security agents found nothing more dangerous than a water bottle.

The episode was relatively brief, but it reveals a great deal about who security agents at JFK airport think is dangerous and from what they are protecting Americans.

The issue is not that the Jew was the one who was stopped and the Muslim was the one who sailed through security.

The issue is that merely the word Jewish on a newspaper was sufficient to draw the agents’ attention and suspicion, while someone whose identity was impossible to discern, who could be hiding who knows what, was ignored by security – security! professionals.

Had the situation been reversed, there is little question that the Committee on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), would be up in arms. So would the American Civil Liberties Union and probably half a dozen Jewish organizations. But in this real life situation, a Jewish woman was stopped as a potential security threat in an airport in New York because she was reading a Jewish newspaper.

Will anyone be up in arms?

 

Boston Bomber Implicated in 9/11/11 Triple Murder, including 2 Jews

Thursday, October 24th, 2013

As The Jewish Press reported six months ago, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older brother implicated in the Boston Marathon Bombings may well have been involved in what had been an unsolved triple murder case which also took place in the Boston area.

And what The Jewish Press noted, but which had not yet been widely discussed, is that not only did Tamerlan Tsarnaev know all three of the young men whose throats were slashed open, but that the murders occurred on September 11, 2011, exactly ten years to the day after the Islamist assault on America which resulted in the murder of innocent thousands.

Well, now we have a piece of real evidence linking Tsarnaev to the triple murder.

“According to Todashev, Tamerlan Tsarnaev participated in the Waltham homicides,” federal prosecutors said in a court filing, though they did not elaborate.

According to federal prosecutors in the criminal case against the Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the younger, sole surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon Bombings, a friend of the older brother Tamerlan, Ibragim Todashev, said that Tamerlan “participated in the Waltham homicides.”

Todashev had been a person of interest connected to the Tsarnaevs whom federal authorities were pursuing, but on the day he was interrogated by an FBI agent, he was shot and killed.  That death remains under investigation.

The information became public this week because Dzokhar’s lawyers filed a motion to compel the release of evidence in the possession of the prosecution, including information about the Waltham triple murders. Prosecutors opposed the motion.

Erik Weissman, 31 of Waltham, Raphael Terek, 37, of Waltham and Brendan Mess, 25, of Waltham were murdered on September 11, 2011. Terek and Weissman were Jewish, and Weissman was a graduate of Brandeis University, a Jewish-affiliated school also located in Waltham.At the time of the murders, authorities seemed quick to dismiss the gruesome murder as a drug-deal gone bad, but the fact that there was no sign of forced entry and that more than $7000 worth of marijuana was spread around the three bodies belied this tack.

No one seemed to even notice that the murders took place on the tenth anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

But after the Tsarnaevs were identified as suspects in the Marathon bombings, people who noted at the time of the murders that Tamerlan, who had been very close with one of the three murder victims, never showed up for the funeral or any memorial service, and people began to talk.

Although there has been speculation before that Todashev named Tamerlan Tsarnaev as having been involved in the Waltham triple murder, the documents filed in court this week provided the first official evidence.

Todashev’s death at the hands of an FBI agent who had been interrogating him initially resulted in an outpouring of sympathy for the slain Chechen former wrestler.  However, a former live-in girlfriend’s complaints of abuse by U.S. authorities clashed with the mourning by someone claiming to be Todashev’s widow who had remained overseas during Todashev’s tenure in the U.S.

Of course, there are advocates for people involved in all kinds of unpleasant business. The Florida branch of the Council for American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, requested the US Department of Justice open an investigation into the allegations of civil rights violations and abuse by the FBI of Todashev’s friends.

Can’t Say Terrorism, Can’t Say War on Terror, Islamist Now a No-No

Saturday, April 6th, 2013

It seems to have started during the spring of 2009, when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano first appeared in her new role at a congressional hearing.

Some close listeners of her testimony realized that while Napolitano was head of the U.S. government’s cabinet-level department created specifically in response to the terrorist attacks against this country on September 11, 2001, the word “terrorism” never crossed her lips.

The English online version of the German newspaper Der Spiegel interviewed Napolitano shortly after her maiden congressional speech, and asked her about that glaring inconsistency.

Napolitano explained that by substituting the phrase “man-made disaster” for “terrorism,” the Obama administration was demonstrating “that we want to move away from the politics of fear.”

In the four years since the word “terrorism” was dropped from the play list, several other terms or words have been placed on the “no speak list.”

For example, during the George W. Bush administration the U.S. was fighting something called “the war on terror.”  But “terror” and “war” are both such negative terms that the Obama administration gave it the heave-ho,  replacing it with “overseas contingency operations.”

This week a new change in parlance was introduced.  Although the U.S. government is not responsible for this change, it will have at least as enormous an impact on how we speak as if it were ordered from the White House, probably even greater.

The Associated Press Stylebook is an extensive compilation of standardized terminology, abbreviations, capitalizations and other information journalists use to convey information.  It is the most widely-used resource for journalists, and therefore the way in which it chooses to define words or concepts has an enormous ripple effect on the public’s understanding of many subtle and not so subtle issues.  The Stylebook also plays a major role in determining when, whether and how new words or concepts enter the general lexicon.

For example, in the 2010 edition of the AP Stylebook, a new section was added on social media, for the first time addressing how “Twitter” and “Facebook” can be used by journalists and therefore how it will be introduced to consumers of news.  That new section also was responsible for officially transforming the word website from a two-word phrase to one word.

From a report in Politico on Friday, April 6, we learned there’s more change afoot.  While there has already been some discussion of the change in reference to “illegal aliens” to “undocumented workers,” another change has thus far received less attention.  This changed has been traced directly to campaigning by the Council on American-Islamic Relations against the use of a term it described as pejorative.

In a January CAIR press release, the organization which describes itself as a Muslim civil rights group, but which government officials have described as a front-group for Hamas, was unhappy with the way the AP Stylebook defined “Islamist.”

The AP added the term “Islamist” to its Stylebook in 2012.  The term was defined:

Islamist—Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

CAIR found that definition objectionable, and urged the AP to drop the term from its Stylebook.

The AP went even further.

Although “Islamist” is still a defined term in the AP Stylebook, reporters are now admonished not to use it to mean something objectionable.  The entry for “Islamist” now reads, with emphasis added by Politico:

An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists. Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

CAIR issued a press release Friday, April 5, welcoming the change by AP, and calling the Stylebook revision a “step in the right direction.”

NPR’s Jihad

Sunday, March 10th, 2013

NPR is hard at work using our taxpayer dollars to advance the propaganda of jihadists. The Goebbels-style ad campaign of Hamas-CAIR is getting enormous support from an outrageously compromised NPR. You can put a happy child’s face on mass murder, but it’s still mass murder.

DC ad jihad

Our campaign (right) makes the point that minimizing jihad (by CAIR) is minimizing mass murder and cultural annihilation.

NPR’s Monique Parsons goes overboard in her fervor to please Hamas in America (CAIR). She hits the ground running in her first sentence about “an advertising battle going on over the Arabic term jihad.” It’s not that “Arabic” is wrong. But it’s misleading. Jihad is a religious mandate, and it’s an Islamic term, it is a religious term. Arabic is the language of Islam.

Parsons at NPR says our ads “present jihadists as violent.” Uh, no, they are violent. They are killing non-Muslims and more secular Muslims at mind numbing speed. Counter jihad blogs cover the mass slaughter, subjugation, oppression and misogyny every day from Nigeria to Thailand, Ethiopia to Bangladesh, Egypt to Zanzibar, Mali, Malaysia, Iran, et al.

Parsons goes on to make the segment about the duel meaning of jihad. Tell that to the hundreds of millions of victims of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations and enslavements. The sick slave mentality of the media is vomit-inducing.

Parsons happily goes along with Hamas-CAIR’s ruse of using women and children as human shields, as a prop for jihad. The tragic irony here is that countless women and children are victims of the jihadists war on innocent civilians. The horror. Here again we see the poisonous fruit of the left’s primitive motives — they work only off emotion and not reason. Parson feels and thus acts, despite the body count.

Parsons never mentions CAIR’s un-indicted co-conspirator status in the largest Hamas funding trial in our nation’s history or that the US government named them a Muslim Brotherhood proxy in that same criminal court case. Many members of their leadership are serving jail time for terror related offenses, but in Parsons’s way of thinking (I should say feeling), this is clearly unrelated to a news story on jihad. Got that?

But this is another reason why our ads are so effective. These ads expose the grotesque bias of a media aligned with the jihad force. This may get reporters in with their leftist peers and compromised editors, but the millions of Americans and freedom lovers abroad think these tools are idiots. They know. The tens of thousands who showed up at our ground zero mosque protests know. The millions of Americans who opposed it and support anti-sharia laws know.

Listen to the NPR radio report here or read it here. It could have been written by Qaradawi himself.

Visit Atlas Shrugs

Islam in the United States

Wednesday, February 13th, 2013

John Walker Lindh is a citizen of the United States who was born in Washington, D.C. in the year 1981. Lindh was not born a MuslimHe converted when he was 16 years old and then traveled to Yemen in order to learn Arabic. In 2000, he traveled to Afghanistan and underwent an educational and training course in al-Farouq, an al-Qaeda training camp. He made contact with the organization of Mujahadeen in Pakistan, and was caught in 2001 in Afghanistan serving as a jihadist with the Taliban. He was convicted of fighting for an illegal organization and sentenced to twenty years in the Terre Haute prison in the state of Indiana.

In prison, Lindh continued to preach to his fellow prisoners and exhort them to be persistent in their jihad against the United States and the jihad to enforce Muslim Shari’a law on all of humanity. As a result, the prison authorities limited his participation in public prayer to only one time per week, on Friday. He appealed to the court, demanding to be allowed to participate in public prayer five times a day. The judge of the federal court, Jane Magnus-Stinson, found – contrary to the opinion of the prison authorities – that despite the fact that Lindh does not recognize the legality of the American court or the authority of her honor the judge, he nevertheless has the right to pray in public and to meet with his comrades five times every day, even if it means that the prison must beef up its security arrangements in order to accommodate his wishes.

This is not an isolated case. The United States has been driven for the past several years by “political correctness,” which censors any reference to a person’s faith, even if this faith instigates him to wage holy war against the United States. According to this approach, if someone claims that the United States is the “little Satan,”  Americans must accept this characterization as correct and legitimate, and if the American is uncomfortable with this, he should do some soul searching to ascertain the reason that caused the Other – who is clearly miserable, hungry and neglected because of the crimes of the United States – to regard him as Satan.

Political correctness is what dictates conduct in the highest echelons of leadership in the United States: most citizens of the country consider it to be unacceptable to say that President Obama comes from a Muslim family, and believe that it is not legitimate to refer  to Obama’s religion in any way. This is why the campaign against Obama that was based on this fact failed to prevent him from being re-elected.

The federal investigative bodies have also been seized by American political correctness; and two years ago, in keeping with instructions  from above, training programs for the FBI agents and other investigative agencies were changed, so that today, an interrogator is forbidden to relate to the religion or beliefs of someone under investigation, even if his faith or beliefs actually incite him  to murderous jihad against the state. Authorities of the state forbid the use of the expression “Islamic terror,” and laundered expressions such as “ideological violence” must be used instead.

The slaughter that  Major Nidal Malik Hasan perpetrated against his comrades at the Fort Hood base in Texas in order to prevent them from going to Afghanistan, is described by the authorities as “workplace violence.” For the adherents of political correctness, the fact that Hasan was in contact with Anwar Awlaki, the Yemeni-American terrorist who was subsequently eliminated, does not contradict the theory of political correctness that characterizes Islam as a religion of peace and love, hugs and kisses. “Islam” – so they believe – is based on the Arabic word “salam,” which means “peace,” because the superficiality that characterizes the American media discourages people from looking it up and discovering that the real meaning of the word “Islam” is “surrender” or “submission.”

Together with an American colleague, an attorney by the name of David Yerushalmi, I published an article about two years ago, “Shari’a and Violence in Mosques of the United States.”  This article is based on analysis of data and material that was collected in approximately one hundred mosques across the United States. Included in this material are two interesting pamphlets, in clear English. One is “40 Hadiths on Jihad” (a hadith is part of the Islamic oral tradition that relates to the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad). This and this booklet is a song of praise to jihad, to the jihadist and to his reward in the world to come. Jihad in this booklet is not against illness, poverty, neglect and corruption, and not even against the evil inclination, but against anyone who is not Muslim, and implicitly, every American who does not convert to Islam.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/dr-mordechai-kedar/islam-in-the-united-states/2013/02/13/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: