photo from www.reformislam.org
On Saturday, the 4th of Thul-Hijjah 1430 (November 21, 2009 G.) the Sacramento Valley chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations held their 7th Annual Fundraising Banquet. The week prior was the 15th Annual Banquet of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter. I attended these banquets, not to support CAIR, but to form my opinion of them. I discussed my first impressions after the CAIR-SFBA dinner, and what follows are my second impressions after the CAIR-SV dinner. CAIR's detractors will call this cheer leading, but I maintain that the surest way to know the intentions of any nonprofit organization is to see what they are selling to their donors, because being utterly dependent upon their contributions they are utterly accountable to them. At the very least this tells us the intentions of the donors, because this is what they are buying. I still intend to read the "book" Muslim Mafia, and present my analysis in a future article.
I am continually surprised by how mainstream supporters of CAIR are. Far from a convention of "Islamists", this was more like any other gathering of leftists, peaceniks and purveyors of identity politics. Attending this banquet were representatives from the Asian Law Caucus (ALC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) among others. The program booklet was filled with letters of support from public figures such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, and scores of other state officials from both sides of the aisle at various levels of government. The sponsors list in the back, while including a number of Muslim owned businesses, was also filled with mainstream corporations like AT&T and the International House of Pancakes. A special video message was presented from Congressman Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Democrat State Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada was given the floor to speak about equal opportunity, peace and justice. Steven Tupolo from the US Census Bureau was invited to speak about the importance of submitting our census data.
I was actually a bit disappointed to see CAIR rolling out the red carpet for the the US Census Bureau. It was, after all, the US Census that provided the data needed to round up the Japanese during World War Two. Tupolo assured me that by law the US Census Bureau does not share personal data with any other agency. That it is compiled for statistical purposes only. But when I asked if they couldn't just change the law he said, "Sure, Congress has the right to change the law whenever." Not a lot of assurance there. I personally think Muslims would be better served to side with Republicans and Libertarians against the US Census and it's lack of Constitutional basis. Though officially non partisan, CAIR is decidedly left of center, probably another reason why the Neo-Cons hate them so much.
I was especially impressed with the representatives from the Asian Law Caucus. CAIR presented the Asian Law Caucus with their Courage and Inspiration Award. The ALC has been CAIR's partner in their joint Know Your Rights workshops and spokeswoman Veena Dubal, in her acceptance speech said, "If CAIR stands accused of instructing Muslims not to cooperate with the FBI, and the Asian Law Caucus collaborates on those events, shouldn't we also stand accused?" The Asian Law Caucus stands with CAIR despite the recent publicity generated from Muslim Mafia. Dubal believes that the reason CAIR was targeted by the Republicons is that they are so successful.
By far the star of the evening was guest speaker, Sheikh Alauddin El-Bakri. He is from North Africa, and expanded his studies in Islamic sciences under prominent scholars in Jordan. He has a bachelor's degree in international studies and a master's degree in comparative religion. Sheikh Alauddin came to the U.S. in 1996 and has served as an Imam at numerous Islamic centers, and as an advisory board member at many Islamic organizations. He co-founded IMAN (Inner City Muslim Action Network) in Chicago, established Badr Islamic school in Fresno and is currently the Khateeb at Saratoga Masjid in California.
Sheikh Alauddin articulated so acutely exactly what I'd hoped to hear, the only real way to do it justice is to quote excerpts from his talk directly. You can see the full transcript here. Keep in mind, the Sheikh does not work for CAIR. He merely supports them. But if CAIR, or any organization lived up to his call (with the exception of the Obama worship) they would have my support as well.
Justice:
"A Muslim stands for Justice. Because they say, 'What charity is trying to remedy today, justice could have prevented yesterday.' ... I will read for you a translation of a verse in the Quran. Chapter four and verse one hundred and thirty five. 'Oh you who believe, stand out firmly for justice as witnesses to God...' And here's the statement, '...even when it is against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin and whether it be against the rich or poor for God can best protect both. Follow not the desires of your heart lest you will swerve from the Truth and decline justice and distort justice verily Allah is acquainted with all that you do.'
...
Now brothers and sisters, I want to tell you that we, as Muslims, we don't lose when we lose a lawsuit. We don't lose when we lost our land. We don't lose when we lose a life or an opportunity. We lose when we lose our values and our principles. That's when we lose. And that's why as believers we have to always stand up for our values... That when injustice is done against us we have to stand up, and when injustice is done by us we also have to stand up. So, that we gain credibility in the community."
This is perhaps the most important thing that can be said about justice, that it knows no class or creed. And this addresses one of my primary concerns about special interest groups in general, that they seem to only know class and creed. If CAIR wishes to stand up and defend Muslims when they are right, they must be willing to stand up against Muslims when they are wrong. Otherwise, where is their credibility? Further, if Muslims are going to get into the game of civil rights and identity politics there is tremendous risk, as the Sheikh says, of losing their principles in that den of snakes.
Between two extremists:
We are sandwiched by a handful of few who are extremists or terrorists or whatever they are. And they are loud, and the media loves them and they love to cover them. And we are here. And we have to be louder than them if we don't like what they do.... They hijack Islam itself. They hijack the beautiful name of Islam...
If there's some people that they want to die in the name of God, I want to live in the name of Allah! ((applause)) If there are people who want to destroy in the name of Allah, I want to build in the name of Allah! If there are people who want to take life, I want to save life in the name of Allah!
... The second half of the sandwich... is the extremists on the other side who want to keep on poisoning the minds of Americans about Muslims in America... These people, if it's up to them they want to round up all Muslims and put them in concentration camps... They don't realize that in turning against Muslims in America they are turning against the very fabric and the very structure of the American society.
... If you make these laws to target Muslims today, you don't know who it's going to be used against tomorrow. It's not going to be Muslims. It's going to be someone else.
I am a moderate Muslim, but I am a radical libertarian. You don't have to be a Muslim or a libertarian to see that the "War on Terror" is being used to create a police state in America. The Constitution believed to protect the rights of all has been abridged by those willing to violate the rights of some. The legal authority given to the State to protect you from Bedouins in caves in the third world will be used to a silence and intimidate others, even non Muslims, even you. If you haven't read the famous poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller, go and read it now. No Now!
Those who want to utilize the coercive power of the State against Muslims must take heed that the legal precedents they set can and will be used against other Americans. Further, CAIR and those Muslims willing to utilize the coercive power of the State against their detractors must take heed that the legal precedents they set can and will be used against Muslims in America.
Comments
Davi, did you know Dubal advises Muslims NOT to cooperate with the FBI?
"Muslim Americans are being increasingly targeted for unwarranted house searches and questioning, said Veena Dubal, staff attorney of the Asian Law Caucus, during a brown-bag seminar at the organization’s headquarters here Aug. 5.
... “We tell people its better not to talk to an FBI agent, because if you do and you misrepresent yourself, you could be subject to criminal penalty.”
No wonder CAIR, an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas infrastructure, gave a award to them.
google on the web: FBI Profiling of Muslims on the Rise, Says Law Caucus www.indiawest.com/readmore.aspx?id=1388&sid=1
What a pleasant surprise to learn today the the people of Switzerland overwhelmingly approved a change to their constitution and implemented a ban on the construction of mosque minarets. Seems that after opening their arms to over 400,000 muslims, the Swiss (PBUT) are finally sending a message to their politicians that tolerance does have a limit after all, especially when dealing with such an intolerant ideology: islam.
Today, we are all Swiss!!
Brandi: Did you know that I advise you NOT to cooperate with the FBI?
Veena Dubal is a licensed attorney. As such, she could be disbarred were she to advise anyone of anything illegal. Ergo, it is perfectly legal not to cooperate with the FBI within your legal rights. This is what CAIR and ALC advise everyone.
But enough about CAIR. Let's talk about you?
Do you universally condemn the use or threatened us of violence against civilians? Specifically, the dropping of a nuclear weapon on innocent people?
Do you support the separation of religion and politics, specifically, the separation of synagogue and state in the Israel?
Finally, and most importantly, do you support violence against me? Because I can't continue a civil discussion with someone so hesitant to denounce the use of violence against me.
Apostate of islam: I disagree with you because I believe in property rights. Maybe you can help me understand your position. Can you define "minaret" and "mosque" for me and explain how it is legally different from "steeple" and "church."
to view a partial list of crimes committed by FBI agents over 1500 pages long see
forums.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=59139
to view a partial list of FBI agents arrested for pedophilia see
dallasnews.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3574
I don't know about Switzerland, but in the US most mosques are not allowed to have the call to prayer at full volume from their minaret. If minarets in Switzerland do have the call to prayer this audible intrusion on public property may be what they are really banning, not the architecture itself. That may also be what the Swiss people are protesting, which makes a little more sense than baning what amounts to nothing more than a tower on private property.
Davi, you fail to see that, at its core, this is much more than just a legal issue, although I'm sure the legality of the Swiss population's vote will be challenged. This is more about sending a clear message that the Swiss people value Switzerland for what it is (or was) and not for what it will become if nothing is done to contain the islamization of that country. This was more about sending a clear, strong message that the noble Swiss people will not sit idle as hordes of islamic immigrants bring with them an ideology of misogyny that condones forced marriage, honor killings and hitting women as a means of instilling discipline (koran verse 4:34). This is a strong message to the Swiss politicians that they need to get serious about filtering out immigrants who have ideologies incompatible with the Swiss way of life.
May the rest of the world head this COURAGEOUS example (we all know very well how islamists are capable of violent demonstrations - think cartoon riots - shame, shame
Perhaps this is not a legal definition, but I define and differentiate "mosque" and "minaret" from "church" and "steeple" as places of worship and architectural constructions which are widely permitted in non-muslim nations while "steeple" and "church" are severally restricted in a significant number of islamic majority countries. Even in those considered "moderate" as in Egypt. We need not even speak about churches in Saudi Arabia...
I did hear about one church in Qatar, although it has no bells or visible crosses. In several islamic majority states, churches are not allowed to have any explicitly Christian symbols visible: no tower, no cross, no statues. Such things can only be inside the grounds and may not be visible from the outside.
You can try to turn it around to me but doesn't that really make YOU appear childish and unable to respond in an intelligent manner?
Here's a quick reference guide to CAIR's history:
CAIR was spun-off by employees of the Islamic Association of Palestine started by Hamas leader, Mousa Marzook and Sami al-Arian (a convicted terror supporter). IAP was shut down by the federal government.
Marzook wrote a check out to CAIR for $5,000 in October 1994 to help them get started (a copy of the canceled check was made available to the public by federal prosecutors).
CAIR and the Muslim American Society was described in a court brief UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. SABRl BENKAHLA on page 58 (footnote 13) as arms or founded by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Evidence presented at another trial, Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case, was the reason the FBI broke off relations with CAIR. It was also the reason CAIR was named an unidicted co-conspirator in the case
Jason: I'll accept that argument when I see the Swiss taking equal measures to enforce the sound ordinance against Church bells.
Apostate: Saudi and Egyptian laws are not relevant unless you think those laws are just and should be emulated by the West. I'm not taking that position.
Are you seriously in favor of banning an architectural style? Would you ban domes next? How about calligraphy? Can a mosque build a lighthouse? A water tower? Can a mosque build a minaret in a European style? Can a church build a steeple in an arabesque style? You’re really just standing against freedom and private property. You are praising pointing the guns of government in order to enforce your subjective preferences on people you don’t like. But let’s indulge that for a moment. Clearly this law is just a message about the larger immigration problem. If you had a monopoly on violence what would your solution be?
Brandi: I can’t respond intelligently until I understand your position.
I universally condemn terrorism defined as “the use or threatened use of violence against civilians to achieve any objective.” To the extent that Hamas does this, I condemn. As to the motives of specific people, I am still forming my opinion. I appreciate your references.
I want to know if you universally condemn terrorism. But given every opportunity you won’t. You won’t even condemn violence against me. To me that means you have no moral credibility.
I sympathize with your dilemma. You’re probably used to arguments where it’s easy to take the moral high ground and now you’re in a debate with someone schooled in moral philosophy. And worst of all… he’s a Muslim! I’ve logically cornered you. I’ve held up a mirror and showed that you are what you condemn in others. You will not condemn the use of violence against civilians when that violence is used to enforce your subjective preferences.
Saudi, Egyptian, Qatari, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum et cetera restrictions on other religion's places of worship are relevant to the minaret banning. People are finally correlating the presence of islam with the presence of intolerance, with the presence of honor killings, with the presence of hitting one's wife as a way to instill discipline (koran verse 4:34), with anti semitism, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum et cetera. The Swiss have been very tolerant and proof of that has been that over 400,000 muslims are now living in Switzerland. However, the noble Swiss people (PBUT) have discovered that tolerance itself has limits, which became self evident when dealing with a troubling ideology called islam.
The Swiss vote is not about limiting the freedom of practicing ones religion, but it is all about sending a message to the politicians about a need for effective immigration which is compatible with the Swiss way of life.
Apostate: You’ve run circles around my question and my point.
It seems like your position is that Saudi and Egyptian laws should be emulated by the West. I absolutely disagree, but I’ll move on.
I am not talking about freedom of religion. That’s a red herring in my opinion. I’m talking about private property rights. A person has the natural right to build any structure on their own property. But you disagree, and I’d like to identify the degree of your disagreement.
Would you ban a mosque from building a dome? A lighthouse? A water tower? A European style minaret? Would you ban a church from building a steeple in an arab style?
Would you ban a private citizen from building a minaret on their own home?
If you could wield the guns of government how would you solve the “Islamization” problem?
Davi said "I’ve logically cornered you".
You aren't making sense.
Brandi, I've been reading from the beginning and I have to say your evasions are comical. Davi's been persistent with one question. If you want moslems to condemn violence, do you condemn violence? His point his simple. If you support this war on radical islam and you call him an islamist, which you did, do you support war on him. It’s a reasonable question. Why are you so hesitant to answer?
I was disgusted when Tom Tancredo proposed bombing Mecca, and I for one condemn the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was state terrorism plain and simple. There is no moral justification for killing civilians ever.
Davi called these Socratic questions. He’s trying to show you your inconsistencies without putting them right in your face. I think the real question is, are your political opinions based on some principle, or on religious bigotry. If it is some set of principles, what are they? Your refusal to answer only further makes the case that the answer is religious bigotry.
Davi, I love you as my brother in Islam and I support the high quality of articles that you write even though at times I disagree with your specific points.
That's the beauty of Islam though, we can have different opinions on specific interpretations and still be within the fold of Islam. Sometimes there is more than one correct answer to a given question.
However, I will no longer be debating/discussing in these open forums. The dialogue here has de-volved into the equivelant of schoolyard arguments (through no fault of you) and it is counter-productive to continue when one side of the argument refuses to see logic and applies different standards to Muslims than they put to the rest of society.
Be safe, fare well and may Allah empower you always.
Saifullah says that "That's the beauty of Islam though, we can have different opinions on specific interpretations and still be within the fold of Islam."
Replace "Islam" with Buddhism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, even Atheism, and you get the same result. Here, let's give it a try:
"That's the beauty of Baha'i though, we can have different opinions on specific interpretations and still be within the fold of Baha'i."
Saifullah, your comment is deeply offensive to other belief systems, in that it implies that islam is the only one where people can disagree and still be "within the same fold".
Typical islamic supremacist, or just another muslim trying to desperately peddle its troubled belief system.
Come on Davi. You are way smarter than that. You know that what just transpired in Switzerland is that people became aware of what is happening in their country, and they can correlate that with what is happening in Britain, and they just plain repudiate it. This vote is not really about this or that type of structure being banned. THIS VOTE IS ABOUT SENDING A STRONG MESSAGE against the islamization of Switzerland. The Swiss know that wherever islam gets a foothold, that sharia law is not too far behind. The Swiss (PBUT) know that it is time for other belief systems to fill the immigration gap; preferably a belief system that is more understanding and accepting of the Swiss way of life.
Dave, stop with this charade of yours and just accept that the Swiss vote is a tactical move, it is a strong MESSAGE to politicians and islamists alike that enough is enough. It's time to accept that there is a problem and they are not going to continue being passive about it. LONG LIVE THE SWI
I made comments about the article Davi wrote about CAIR and brought up their background. Davi, is the one being evasive and avoids discussing the facts while he shills for CAIR, an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas infrastructure in America.
It is never childish to know the facts.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!