Fisking the BBC on CAIR By Andrew L. Jaffee, May 14, 2004	Home   Search   Forum   Terms

The BBC today trumpeted the glories of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), calling it a "leading Islamic advocacy group." British Broadcasting was foaming at the mouth in their praise of CAIR's latest public relations drive, "an online petition designed to dissociate Islam from the violent acts committed under its banner." Too bad the BBC forgot to mention CAIR's links to terrorism. Part of me is happy to see Muslims signing such a petition. Another part of me rejects anything CAIR does. I see their petition as nothing more than a PR ploy to deflect criticism from CAIR's true agenda. An organization is no better than the people who make up its ranks. But before I disembowel CAIR, let's first Fisk the BBC.

British Broadcasting today offered pure, unadulterated editorializing in a "news" story. The BBC didn't feel it was necessary to mention such minor points like CAIR's recent "promot[ing] and host[ing] a neo-Nazi" speaker. Instead we get unsubstantiated drivel:

The move [petition] reflects a growing defensiveness among American Muslims who feel they are being forced to prove their patriotism.

The BBC offers no quantification of "growing defensiveness." Show me an example of Muslims "being forced to prove their patriotism." I wish the Beeb would show me a poll or survey. I know the FBI reported that there were 931 hate crimes committed against Jews in 2002, while 155 were committed against Muslims. Anti-Jewish incidents decreased only slightly from 2001, while anti-Muslim incidents fell sharply from 481.

The message could not be clearer: "We hope this effort will demonstrate once and for all that Muslims in America and throughout the Islamic world reject violence committed in the name of Islam."

How does the BBC quantify how the "message could not be clearer" especially in light of CAIR's track record? The message is at best muddy. Does British Broadcasting purport to know the underlying motivations and feelings of CAIR's membership?

The tone, bordering on exasperation, betrays the deep sense of unease among American Muslims who have increasingly felt alienated by what they feel is a "with us or against us" mood that has deepened after the beheading of US hostage Nicholas Berg. …

Poor exasperated CAIR. Again, how does the BBC quantify a "'with us or against us' mood?" I don't see any evidence where I live.

Talk shows have revealed the pain and sometimes the ignorance of Americans who have associated the brutal execution with Islam.

How could we not associate the execution of Berg with Islam? Berg's murderers chanted "Allah Akbar!" (God is Great!) while they sawed the poor man's head off. I've seen the tape. I saw and heard Berg gurgling and screaming. "Talk shows have revealed?" Boy, that's a scientific measurement of sentiment. What talk shows? When? What network? And finally, call us Americans "ignorant." Of all the pompous, left-wing, Eurabian arrogance. Apparently, the BBC, a "highly-respected" news organ, is comfortable peddling name-calling and blatant, unsubstantiated editorializing as "news." What a load of crap. Now to take CAIR to task.

CAIR's current and former members have a horrifying track record. The group's former Communications Specialist and Civil Rights Coordinator, Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, was sentenced in April to 20 years in prison for "participation in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia," according to the Department of Justice. Earlier Royer pled guilty to involvement with the Kashmiri terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, ties to Afghanistan's Taliban, connections to Chechnya's terrorists, and last but not least, involvement with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. Specific indictments against Royer included explosives and weapons charges. He also admitted to helping several people "gain entry to a terrorist training camp in Pakistan."

In September, 2003, Royer was served with charges that he "...conspired to provide material support to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organization and to his Taliban protectors in Afghanistan," according to the Washington Post. Royer had already been arrested and charged on June 27, 2003 for "...conspiring to join a Muslim extremist terror group that has been blamed for thousands of deaths in the disputed Kashmir territory of India and Pakistan," according to ABC.

These charges add to a long list of evidence that CAIR has ties to terrorist groups. Siraj Wahhaj, one of CAIR's advisory board members, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case. Nihad Awad, CAIR's Executive Director, has declared himself a supporter of Hamas and the PLO, which are both on the official U.S. list of terrorist organizations. And Bassem Khafagi, CAIR's director of community relations, "was arrested by the FBI in January in connection with a terror-financing front group he helped found that is allegedly tied to both Iraq and al Qaeda." Note that Khafagi has pled guilty to "charges of visa and bank fraud in federal court in Detroit."

For some strange reason, CAIR had been considered a "mainstream" Muslim group, a notion most likely encouraged by the legions of the politically correct. That all seems to be changing. All these indictments -- and now convictions -- have caused a rethinking of the group's "mainstream" label. CAIR has also tempered its previous bold-faced arrogance. In September of 2003, CAIR's Chairman Omar Ahmed and Executive Director Nihad Awad were invited to testify before hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security. Guess what? Neither of them showing up. According to FrontPageMagazine.com, during the hearings,

Senators turned out in force to connect the dots between CAIR and the deviant Islamic extremism that led to the vicious attacks of 9/11. In his opening statement, Chairman Jon Kyl said, "a small group of organizations based in the U.S. with Saudi backing and support, is well advanced in its four- decade effort to control Islam in America -from mosques, universities and community centers to our prisons and even within our military. Moderate Muslims who love America and want to be part of our great country are being forced out of those institutions."

Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat who has been steadfast in his efforts to uncover the nexus of Hamas front groups in the U.S., was ruthless in his portrayal of CAIR as part of an international terror network. In his opening remarks, Senator Schumer stated that prominent members of CAIR—referring specifically to Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmed—have "intimate links with Hamas." Later, he remarked that "we know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism."

Even Senator Richard Durbin, who has made common cause with some of America's Wahhabi-backed groups, came down hard on CAIR. In his final comments he conceded that CAIR is "unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect," and requested that the committee seek the testimony of mainstream Muslim groups in its place in the future.

The Senate is not the only branch of government catching on to CAIR's terrorist connections. In October, President Bush didn't invite CAIR to his annual iftaar dinner, which marks the end of fasting in Ramadan. Bush also recently signed the Syria Accountability Act into law, and appointed Daniel Pipes to USIP -- both issues which CAIR vociferously opposed.

If today's CAIR petition had come from a responsible Islamic organization, I would've taken it seriously, but it didn't and I can't.