Another Whopper by CAIR

The Council on American-Islamic Relations continues offering money -- but with political strings attached -- to the victims of Islamofascist terrorism. FrontPage Magazine's Joe Kaufman reminds us of the most egregious example of this behavior.

A situation similar to this occurred in October of 2001, when Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, a CAIR financier, offered New York City a check for $10 million dollars to go towards relief efforts, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The check was rejected by the former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, on the grounds that the money was attached to a political statement made by Bin Talal, concerning America's relationship to the Mid East.

While visiting the wreckage, Bin Talal called the attacks "a tremendous crime." He added, "We are here to tell America and to tell New York that Saudi Arabia is with the United States wholeheartedly." However, in a written statement handed out by his publicist, the Prince had another message for America. He stated, "At times like this one, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause."

The amount of money is lower now, but the behavior no less outrageous. This time, CAIR offered a pittance (or "seed money" as they called it) to a Catholic Diocese (which accepted it) after the bombings of several Christian churches near Israel. This was done in the name of setting up a fund for the repair of the damaged churches.

However, there would be a catch: Donors would have to write, "CAIR Palestine Damaged Churches" [my bold]. Kaufman correctly points out that the loaded term "Palestine" implies statehood for the various encampments of Arab squatters near Israel. This may seem like a stretch at first glance, but recall that CAIR, as an organization interested in public relations, would surely be acutely sensitive to the fact that this issue is controversial in America. Even the adjective "Palestinian" would have been preferable.

The behavior of Ahmed Bedier, the CAIR official who delivered the check was quite remarkable as well.

... Ahmed Bedier stood side by side with a high-ranking Diocese official. Exactly two months prior to the event, Bedier hosted a radio show where all three of his guests lauded Hezbollah, a group that is found on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations. One of the guests went as far as to label the group "heroic." One must question if Rev. Gibbons was aware of this fact.

...

When Ahmed Bedier led his delegation to St. Paul's, it was not to have dialogue with Catholics, as CAIR had stated in press releases and elsewhere. It just appeared that way, because, while Bedier acted like he was a friend to the Catholic community, the following day something occurred that would severely contradict the "friendship."

On September 25, on WTVT-Tampa's 'Your Turn with Kathy Fountain,' Bedier lashed out at the Pope, the figure whose picture adorns the website of the CNEWA, the group CAIR is raising money through. Bedier angrily stated, "He said his intention was to start a dialogue. Well, if you want to start a dialogue with someone, you don't start it off by slapping them across the face and calling them names and say, 'Well, now let's talk.'" It seems CAIR was acting in the same disrespectful manner towards Catholicism's most revered, as it was accusing the Pope of acting towards Islam's most revered -- except in this case, while extremists across the world were screaming "Death to the Pope," Catholics were embracing them by taking their money. [bold added, links dropped]

No. The way to start a long, one-sided dialogue (every individual caterwauling towards an imaginary being five times a day), Islamic style is to "invite" them to convert (whereupon they will begin their "dialogue") or face unspecified consequences, and then start killing them. The Pope, it seems was supposed to deliver a threat first and then act more boldly. And then, to top it off, he was so gauche as to bring facts into the equation. The nerve!

But honestly, how can an organization ostensibly all about good relations with kaffirs expect to be able to get away with this absurd -- given the daily threats we hear from Moslems -- attack on the Pope? Stephen Browne (item 5) remarks on the flagrant double standards which are so integral to the tribal culture in which Islam originated:

With us, contractual and moral obligations tend to be equal and reciprocal. They don't see it that way. The obligations of the superior to the inferior do not equal those of the inferior to the superior. Obligations within a family or clan outweigh all others. That is why we had to take care not to sit members of the same clan near each other during exams. If one asks another for help, he has to give it. In spite of promises to the school and even when the clansman is a total stranger. Obligations to other believers outweigh all obligations to unbelievers and especially when the believers are fellow-Arabs. And in contracts with unbelievers, the obligations of the Believer to the kaffir are not equal to the obligations of the kaffir to the Believer.

Consider that Muslims in England have quite un-selfconsciously demanded that a pub near a Mosque be shut down as offensive to their religion -- in spite of the fact that the pub had precedence by six hundred years! Or that they demanded the right to broadcast the prayer call on loudspeakers in London while it is illegal to have a church at all in the Kingdom. [bold added]

Got that? Suddenly, the way CAIR acts makes a lot more sense. But we must strive -- in the spirit of greater understanding of our Moslem brothers, of course -- to understand further. After all, now that we know that condescension is part of the cultural context for many members of CAIR, the question understandably remains about why the organization ever attempts to appear friendly at all.

Robert Spencer and again Stephen Browne fill in the gaps. First, Spencer:

Security's removal by the sword meant specifically the end of many treaties the Muslims had made with non-Muslims. Another still-influential Qur'an commentator, Ibn Kathir (1301-1372) quotes an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, to establish that the Verse of the Sword, sura 9:5 ("slay the unbelievers wherever you find them") "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term." He adds from another authority: "No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed." And yet another early commentator, Ibn Juzayy (d. 1340) agrees that one of this verse's functions is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur'an." [bold added]

He goes on to note that according to many interpretations of Islamic scripture, holy war -- literal war -- is a religious obligation.

So it is "open season", as Mansour El-Kikhia might put it, on infidels to begin with. And then there's the way many in that part of the world fight, as Browne tells us (item 6).

In our civilization, when two men get down, either seriously or just "woofing", what do they say? Some variation of "I'm going to kick your ass." Am I right? Here's what I heard in the Kingdom, "Hey, don't f**k with me, or someday you get a knife in the back." I'm not saying that wouldn't happen to you in the West, but most men would be ashamed to make a threat of that nature. We don't understand that direct shock battle is not necessarily the law of nature. When overwhelming force is brought to bear on them, they become cringing and obsequious. To put it bluntly, they lie their heads off to get you to turn your back on them. Try to see it from their point of view -- how else do you expect them to act when you have the overwhelming force? You expect them to meet you on equal terms when the situation is so unequal? What other tactics are available but prevarication and delay followed by a sneak attack?

Folks, what we call "terrorism" is quite close to the historically normal way of warfare among these people. [bold added]

CAIR is the Islamic organization. They're the ones obligated to fight a holy war. And "prevarication and delay" are time-honored traditions in their "holy" land. Take it from there.

-- CAV