22 thoughts on “Moderate Muslim Group Backs NYPD Against Islamist Group CAIR”

1. Look at the source for that story. Accuracy In Media. These same folks pimped the Vince Foster murder conspiracy theories among other far right horse crap.

   Now look at the comments on the story from their site. Particularly the second one, which assures us that the only good moderate muslim is a dead one.

   Are you going to let Pam Geller source your next article about Islam?

2. Eric, while I agree that the threat of Islam is vastly underrated by many on the left, using AIM as a source is treading on thin ice. AIM is a notorious rightwing propaganda organization. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Accuracy_in_Media. Years ago I was a faithful reader of Jihad Watch, but over time I was disturbed by the drift further and further to the right. I actually corresponded with Robert Spencer about how the essential message was getting lost in the rightwing noise, and that his message would be written off as the usual rightwing bigotry. He, of course, blew off any such notion and has since slid all the way over to the far right, joining up with Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs in fighting the alleged “Ground Zero” mosque. I do believe that Islam is the most dangerous religion in the world at this time and certainly harbors the most disgusting behaviors towards women, gays and apostates, and it has a disturbing willingness to use violence to strike its opponents. This in no way mitigates the real danger that the extreme fanatical Christian movement that is sweeping across the US and is spreading out to the rest of the world presents. I’m just saying filter the information from these far right sources carefully because its easy to get caught up in their agenda.

3. Oh, hey, look, Observer (#1)! I’m perfectly willing to retract this if what you say about Accuracy in Media is simply a right wing nut job. I see now where Ophelia got her reference to Family Security Matters, because it is a credit at the bottom where Fink is also attached to the Middle East Forum. And is the American Islamic Forum for Democracy a right wing organisation? Do you see what I mean now by “quicksand of the mind”?

   My problem is trying to sort out all these organisations. And the real problem on top of that one is that none of this is being discussed in public, so we don’t know where Muslims as a group or as a small (or large?) group stand on the consistency of Islam with democratic freedoms. This is highly important, and making a snide remark about letting Pam Geller source my next article (and this one isn’t mine) about Islam is uncalled for. If you know who is who, and what is what, then say so, by all means, but let’s not end up in easy dismissive remarks when the importance of straightening out the mess that constitutes Muslim moderation or extremism is really quite important. And this is the real problem, because very few people seem prepared to sort these things out and come up with a reasonable discussion of the dangers (or not) of Islam to democratic polities. And merely sniping about an attempt do to so is simply unhelpful. It’s too easy to do and settles nothing. My point, in my last post, is that Daisy Khan’s article in the Guardian was simply a mess, and it raised my suspicions about CAIR. I think I’m still very suspicious. And when someone like Zuhdi Jasser speaks out, what are we to think of him? He presents himself (as Terek Fatah does in Canada) as the moderate voice of Islam. Has he much or any support? What are we to think of him?

   The importance of sorting these things out is what I’m aiming at. I have no particular axe to grind. I just want there to be clarity, and the more one works at this the soggier the ground seems underfoot. But that doesn’t lessen one bit the need to get these things sorted out so that we know what a reasonable position looks like when it comes to Islam and its effect on democracy, freedom of speech, etc.

   Sorry, added as an afterthought: I am reminded, when you speak of right wing that the American Enterprise Institute is the only one that would provide room for Ayan Hirsi Ali to do her work. Liberals closed ranks against her, as Timothy Garton Ash and Ian Buruma made sure they would. So right wing may be the only place where a discussion about Islamism can be carried out. In that case, we have to at least provide the rational undergirding for this discussion to take place, and call them out when they present nut case positions. But the left-right divide, since the demise of communism, seems to be a bit passé, and talking about right wing and left wing no longer has the same resonance. So, just calling something right wing is no condemnation, just as calling something left-wing is no praise.

4. Donald (#2), agreed. I’m not suggesting anything by linking AIM on the video narrated by Jasser. It may be right wing, but since the left wing has gone all accommodationist and stolidly refuses to discuss these matters at all, where else are we going to find leverage to deal with what you call the most dangerous religion in the world? Perhaps we need another organisation to take a middle road on these things. I acknowledge that Robert Spencer has moved further to the right. I know nothing about Pam Geller, and haven’t read anything by her, though I think I can recall something that put Geller, Darwish and Sultan together. And remember, as I said in my last comment, that Ayan Hirsi Ali has found it hard finding any room on the left for her point of view. I think the same may be said about Ibn Warraq, who is associated with some people, like Hugh Fitzgerald, who could be considered on the right on some of these things. Suffice it to say that they are all concerned about the effect of Islamism on our democratic way of life, and rightly concerned. If they have been pushed to the right, could that be because they didn’t find any alternatives on the left?

5. Eric, I, too, looked on in horror as you posted an article from aim.org. As a liberal here in the USA, I’ve long loathed their hate-filled “articles.” Organizations such as this are the ones that have dragged the media center far to the right by incessant “nagging the officials.”

   That said, you have brought up a very interesting and serious point; where do we find an even-handed discussion of Islam and Muslim groups? Between the air-headed “Kumbaya” of the Left and the spittle-flecked diatribes and near outright racism of the Right there must be a place to glean some valid data.

   I have been accused (rightly, unfortunately) of coddling Muslims and Islam. Here in Minneapolis, our Congressional Representative is the only Muslim in the House. I voted for him, and quite happily too. We have a large population of immigrants from Somalia and they’ve brought their Islam with them, both for good and bad. It was in an act of accomodation to our new citizens that I trusted that what they said about their religion to the exclusion of “those rightwing nuts.”

   Over the years I’ve become a bit less accomodating to the religion in general as more and facts and my exposure to the actions and words has increased. My biggest concern is that I have begun to enshroud myself in a bubble — first from the left and now as a more active atheist — and the news I read may follow my feelings and understanding of Islam and religion in general.

   Where are things actually going? I’ve heard of the Sharia4 movement growing, but I’ve also read (somewhere, can’t find the link) that the Muslims in the Netherlands become more secular every year. Could it be that the Muslim world is following a similar trajectory to our own Fundementalists here in the United States? As their numbers dwindle, the remaining ones become more and more intolerant and loud and threatening? Is the threat of one determining the actions of the other?

   Knowing actual numbers and getting the feelings of Muslims is difficult for Westerners as the barriers are great: language, culture, trust, and society. How can we balance a tolerance we Western societies value so much with a wariness that we require to keep the Western society we value so much?

6. Here is a link to an article written by a man with very good “leftist” credentials – he co-operated with Michael Moor and was a constant blogger on Daily Kos: Eric Allen Bell. When he started to dig deeper and question some of the assumptions about the “religion of peace” he was cut off and the only place which was willing to publish his explanation was Frontpage – if I understand your divisions, “rightist” site.
   http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/07/the-high-price-of-telling-the-truth-about-islam/2/

7. Bortheryam, thanks for your comment. I have to stress that, if I do (mistakenly) post something which is identifiable as “right wing nuttery”, it’s not intentionally, and, above all things, I think rational discussion about things is not only best, but vitally important. One of the differences between the zeal of dwindling evangelical fundamentalism and dwindling Islamism (if either is in fact dwindling), just to point out the obvious, is that Islam has always been known for its violent “fringe,” and that fringe is given legitimacy in the sacred texts of Islam. It’s very unlikely that the same thing will develop in Christianity, though some idiot evangelicals have gone violent with abortion clinics and the like.

   Malgorzata, thanks for the link to Eric Bell. In that article he is saying basically the same thing that I am saying, that it is almost impossible to discuss Islam without being dimissed as a right wing nut case. That’s a serious situation, because it means that Islam is not being discussed widely in public as it needs to be. Islam, as a religion, is totally entitled to its views, so long as they do not include theocratic beliefs and attempts to make Islamic theocracy a reality. Islam is, I think it is obvious, much more than just a religion. While it is true that altar and sword were sometimes confused during the ages of Christendom, there is, at the root of Christianity, despite crazy fundamentalists, a basic separation of church and state. Christianity then can and should play a completely non-political role in society, the Catholic Church’s ambitions notwithstanding. The same must be true about Islam, and if Islam cannot accept that religious law and religious governance are inimical to democracy, then some real reform is needed in those Muslims who have immigrated into liberal democratic countries. In order for this to happen, people other than Muslims are going to have to be part of the conversation. It can’t be just left up to Muslims, and if they think it’s solely their business, then they do not understand how liberal democractic polities function. Islam has to be privatised, and shorn of all its theocratic leanings. It’s really that simple. And if that is not possible, then Islam is, indeed, incompatible with democracy, and the sooner we know this the better.

8. Thanks Eric and you’re right, it is very hard to come to the truth in miasma of disinformation from the right and the head-in-the-sand accommodatism of the MSM. Aside from the blogosphere, investigative journalism seems to have completely died. For what’s going on in the right wing politico/religio confabulation, RightWingWatch is among the best. Right now they’re covering CPAC and exposing how much the Republican Party is intimately entwined with the far religious right. Also Talk2Action is very informative.

9. The statement, some of the nation’s leading counterterrorism experts, including former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly, former Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge and famed historian Bernard Lewis., will set off warning bells for many liberal and progressive folks here in the USofA. With the exception of Lewis, all the cited “leading experts” have been actively involved in using the War on Terror to erode the privacy and due process rights of American citizens. CAIR backers may wish to vanquish American liberties but Giuliani et al are actually doing it. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

10. Eric, please understand your posts are not “mistaken.” You are using the information that you have on hand and there is nothing wrong with that. I’m not sure that the information is “wrong” either. It’s a matter of being careful of the source. In this case, the right-wing sources are not necessarily incorrect just as the left-wing sources are correct either. I can’t say and I haven’t vetted them.

    I’d not say that the information is necessarily wrong, but that given the previous history of this site, one should be wary. Since there is little to nothing coming from other sites, the fact that someone is watching what is going on (despite one’s political views) is welcome.

    If their reporting is accurate, then I’m glad but I’d be careful of any analysis that they may provide. Taken with the appropriate amount of salt, it still may be useful. Given how the left has fallen completely, it may be the only actual real reportage we may get.

11. Eric, you wrote ” the real problem on top of that one is that none of this is being discussed in public, so we don’t know where Muslims as a group or as a small (or large?) group stand on the consistency of Islam with democratic freedoms.”

    You might be interested in this Pew Research report on the attitudes of Muslims. There is a lot of interesting stuff in it, like that American Muslims are more likely than American Christians to say that other religions can lead to eternal life, and that American Muslims are less likely to approve of killing civilians in war than the general public. Only 20% of Muslims said they believe American Muslims want to be distinct from American society. I know that a lot of the anti-Islam groups won’t be satisfied with anything Muslims say and basically just claim that most of these Muslims are lying and really are trying to bring down America, but I do think this data should at least be considered.

    http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

12. Dan, your link is actually rather disturbing. It says “How much support for extremism among American Muslims” and the answer is 21%. The article spins it that there is no rise, but equally then there is no fall. 1 in 5 American Muslims are extremists, yet you portray that as “only”. Propaganda works two ways.

13. Thank you Egbert. I think that the data provided by the Pew Research report is not only rather disturbing, but very disturbing. I would not have thought that there was 21% support amongst Muslims in the US for Muslim extremism. This is very high, and when you remember that Muslim extremism means a support of Islamic terrorism, it is disturbingly high. If we take the highest estimate for the number of Muslims in America (7 million), this means that there are over a million Muslim Americans who support terrorism! Isn’t that a big problem? And even if there are only 2 million Muslims in America (the lowest estimate), there are still over 400,000 who support terrorism, and who believe that the aim of Muslims should be an Islamic State of America.

14. I should point out first that the total number of Muslims in America will also include a large percentage of young children who are hardly likely to be extremists. Second that the Pew question asked whether the Muslims thought there was a great deal (6%) or a fair amount (15%) of extremism in the American Muslim community not whether they themselves were extremist. A hefty percentage (48%) thought their leaders hadn’t done enough in speaking out (and leaders have been speaking out even if not covered in the mainstream press). CAIR btw has been fairly prominent in denouncing violence.

    A more significant point is that 81% say that suicide bombings are never justified against civilians in order to defend Islam. That still leaves 19% who say rarely (5%), sometimes (7%), and often (1%). However if the enormity is the killing of civilians not the suicide, I suspect a similar number of non-Muslim Americans would have little trouble in killing non-American civilians if it was felt necessary to defend America (or Christianity?). I wonder if anyone done a survey on that?

15. This is an extremely difficult problem to get even rational heads around. We want to support the idea that everyone is free to believe in what they wish, because if we don’t support that then someone must decide which beliefs are OK and which are not. Who is qualified to do this, how could we find someone or some group without their own agenda? In the West, it seems to have been agreed upon that the best way is to expose all ideas and they will survive on their own merit. But at what point does the freedom to have unrestricted beliefs turn into the desire to impose your set of beliefs on others? If enough people are willing to take some action to turn their beliefs, which they believe to be the absolute truth, into law and coerce others to follow them, what should our action then be. How do we deal with such people? Their actions are driven by their beliefs, but we can’t stop their beliefs, so how do we stop their actions? It isn’t just Islam that is the problem, it’s the idea that any group has the right to forcibly impose their beliefs on others. In the US we have a serious problem with the fanatical religious groups who have inserted themselves deeply in the political process and are pushing for some kind of theocracy. I spent some time working daily with Saudi Arabian sailors and a short time working with them in Saudi Arabia itself. There, Islam is religion, culture and government. There is no concept of separation. The religious police patrol the streets, clerics are in the military keeping an eye on the troops. Still I saw many regular Saudis giving lip service to religion, doing whatever they had to do to keep out of trouble, but not truly believing, so it is very true that not every Muslim is a fanatic, but many are woefully misinformed because of the propaganda they are submitted to. However for far to many the siren song of the mullahs is too strong and they get sucked into the delusion. I saw much the same thing in Northern Ireland in the 70′s, the older leadership would woo the younger, more vulnerable, into fighting for “The Cause”. I also saw that when the alleged goal of the terrorists, in this case the IRA, were being met with the Brits trying to withdraw, they stepped up their attacks. From this I derived the idea that the actual goal of the terrorists is unimportant, in fact the more unachievable, the better. The alleged goal, “The Cause”, is just an excuse to do violence, just a means of justifying their sociopathic behavior. If this is true no matter what concessions are made, they will not stop. So beliefs and actions, chickens and eggs. If the actual beliefs are unimportant, are just an excuse, then it is only the actions that must be dealt with and the fact that the beliefs are religious should in no way stop us from dealing with the actions by using the rule of law.

16. Erp (#14). Given the number of pictures of children that can be found holding AK-47s and chanting slogans, I’m not sure that your first point is true. And, while your second point might show that there is less extremism in the American Muslim community, it might in fact mean that there is more than people think. But I should have thought, since many Muslim communities are geographically localised, that this probably gives a fairly reasonable estimate of the amount of extremism in the American Muslim community. Muslims don’t stand to gain by exaggerating the number. And while CAIR may be fairly prominent in denouncing violence, it does not follow that violence does not serve CAIR’s purposes. I have said before, and will say again, that Islam has spread by the sporadic violence of a minority of Muslims. The threat of terror has been fairly constant in the history of Islam. The whole idea of the Dhimmi is to make sure that terror is uppermost in the minds of those subject to Islamic rule. Islam was, in the first place, spread by violence, and, second, it was maintained by the threat of violence.

    You say this:

    if the enormity is the killing of civilians not the suicide, I suspect a similar number of non-Muslim Americans would have little trouble in killing non-American civilians if it was felt necessary to defend America (or Christianity?).

    Do you really think that non-Muslim Americans would have little trouble using indiscriminate terrorism on civilian populations in order to defend America (or Christianity)? For this is what your equivalence would amount to. And is it even true that such violence is necessary in order to defend Islam? Besides, that 19% is still a troubling figure.

17. I could well believe 19% of Americans might consider violence against civilians justified under certain circumstances (think shock and awe, think of the rhetoric by some on the right-wing) especially if the civilians are ‘other’.

    Note I think it is still wrong whether it be Muslims, Christians, atheists, Americans, Iranians who are doing it. I just don’t think that American Muslims are so so different from other Americans.

    Terror is the standard operating mode of many forms of government. The serfs in Russia or medieval Europe knew what to expect if they made ‘trouble’ (as did Jews in those same countries) or Blacks in the US until fairly recently (or Native Americans).

18. Erp, I’m not talking simply about violence against civilians. I’m speaking about indiscriminate terrorism against civilians. And I find it hard to believe that a significant percentage of Americans would support the kinds of terrorism that happened on 9/11, 7/7. or the Madrid bombings, the terror attack on Bombay and indiscriminate murder of civilians there, etc. War and conflict and the “collateral” death of civilians, is one thing, but targetting civilians in an indiscriminate way is, I think, another. Shock and awe, like Blitzkrieg, was an expression for a way of making war with overwhelming firepower and speed, and doubtless many civilians were killed as a result, but it is another thing to blow up a train, set off a bomb in a mall or a market or a mosque or church. And I’m not only speaking here about rhetoric, but about genuine willingness to see it done. A lot of right wing rhetoric is simply hot air. We know to our cost that many threats by Muslim extremists are not idle, and based on history and experience it seems clear that religious violence is an integral part of Islam. There are many examples of imams giving exhortations to the most terrible violence in retaliation for supposed offences against the prophet, the Qu’ran or some other supposedly sacred thing. This is a very different order of religious violence than any that is practiced by or encouraged by Christians. It may have been characteristic of the Christian past — in the Crusades, for example, largely fired up though they were by the imperial ambitions of Islam — but certainly Christianity in the West has (or should that be ‘had’? — there seems to be a lot of theocracy about nowadays) learned to be a good citizen, at least to a large degree. Islam is different, and, as some would say when it is suggested that Islam has yet to pass through a reformation, Islamists are Islam’s reformation.

19. Egbert and Eric, Not sure why you find that poll so disturbing, I think you might need to reread it and compare it to similar polls about the average American. If this poll is correct, Muslims are more peaceful than the general public, and we should be more worried about conservative Christians than Muslims. I also suggest you reread the poll because it indicates that American Muslims beliefs are much different than non-American Muslims, so Eric’s reply to Erp (about American Muslim children) citing AK-47 waving children chanting slogans is not applicable to the discussion, unless that is a common sight in America.

    The poll actually shows that Muslims are less likely than the average American to support killing civilians. Muslims were more likely than Christians to say that other religions were paths to God. The vast majority want to integrate into American culture. And like was pointed out, it isn’t that 20% of Muslims said they personally were extremist, it shows that 20% of Muslims thought there was extremism in American Islam. The poll is measuring people’s views of members of their group, not their individual views. 80% of Muslims didn’t think there was extremism in American Muslims. If you asked American Christians if there was some extremism in American Christianity I’m sure you would get at least 20% saying yes, that doesn’t mean those 20% would all personally identify as extremists or abortion clinic bombers.

20. I can read just fine Dan, thanks all the same old chap.

21. Well, you claimed the poll I referenced showed 20% of American Muslim’s identified as extremists, which is absolutely incorrect, so I assumed you just read it wrong. If you read it correctly, I’m confused about your claim. Was your 20% self-identified extremists claim from a different source?

22. @Eric, the poll didn’t distinguish between the two types of violence. Bombings against civilians also happen in more war like settings (e.g., Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon [or for a non-Muslim former conflict, Sri Lanka]); we don’t know under what conditions the respondents felt that suicide bombings could be justified.

    I’m not sure the Pew poll covers non-Muslim American’s views on violence towards civilians. A Gallup poll last year did, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascinating-look-at-the-political-views-of-muslim-americans/242975/. The questions are different so the numbers are somewhat different. Two pertinent ones were

    “Some people think that for the military to target and kill civilians is sometimes justified, while others think that kind of violence is never justified. What is your opinion?”

    21% of Muslim Americans answered it was sometimes justified. Most other groups answered between 43% (no religion/atheist/agnostic) and 64% (Mormon) with Christians (Protestant and Catholic) were at 58%.

    The other question

    “Some people think that for an individual person or small group of persons to target and kill civilians is sometimes justified, while others think that kind of violence is never justified. What is your opinion?”

    11% of Muslims said it was sometimes justified. Other groups ranged from 19% (Mormon) to 27% (Catholic).

    Full poll results which I haven’t looked at yet (slow download)
    http://www.abudhabigallupcenter.com/148778/REPORT-BILINGUAL-Muslim-Americans-Faith-Freedom-Future.aspx