October 21, 2006 Posts
09:23 Reject the Political Muslim-Bashing Smears, Part II
Reject the Political Muslim-Bashing Smears, Part II
Nihad Awad and Pervez Ahmed should be ridiculed for statements made in their Strib op-ed, especially this one:
We are proud of our personal donations to Ellison's campaign. He has proven himself to be an effective legislator and his commitment to social justice is worthy of admiration. We believe his election will send a powerful message to the world about America's commitment to religious inclusion and tolerance. No one should be vilified merely for exercising their rights as an American citizen. Yet attacks on Ellison fit a disturbing pattern of Muslim-bashing that has been seen nation-wide this campaign season.What a pile of Barbra Streisand it is to say that Ellison has proven "his commitment to social justice." Was it his "commitment to social justice" that caused him to speak at a fundraiser for longtime fugitive Kathleen Soliah, aka Sara Jane Olson where he said "We need to come together and free,all the Saras"?
Was it his "commitment to social justice" that caused him to say that
he saw "startling similarities" between Soliah and the gang members he represents: Bloods, Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples" where "he portrayed gang members as misunderstood victims, ordinary folks whose parents "scrimp, save,maybe sell plates of BBQ chicken so Junior can get an attorney"?Forgive me if I don't take Mssrs. Awad's and Ahmed's op-ed seriously but I can't take seriously what is patently absurd.
We understand the fear some Americans have of all things Muslim and Islamic. We hear these fears when visiting temples, synagogues and churches. We see the fear in people's eyes when we board an aircraft. The current wave of terror committed in the name of Islam by a tiny minority of misguided individuals makes it all too easy to attack Islam and stereotype Muslims. Yet a look beyond the violent headlines reveals a more complex situation.Mssrs. Awad and Ahmed characterize the terrorists as "a tiny minority of misguided individuals" but that's a mischaracterization and they know it. They know it because their organization's statements have defended terrorists. Take this statement as an example of their advocacy:
One indication came in October 1998, when the group demanded the removal of a Los Angeles billboard describing Osama bin Laden as "the sworn enemy," finding this depiction "offensive to Muslims."That isn't all they said on the matter:
The same year, CAIR denied bin Laden's responsibility for the twin East African embassy bombings. As [Ibrahim] Hooper saw it, those explosions resulted from some vague "misunderstandings of both sides."Then there's this statement:
The conviction of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing it deemed "a travesty of justice." The conviction of Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh who planned to blow up New York City landmarks, it called a "hate crime." The extradition order for suspected Hamas terrorist Mousa Abu Marzook it labeled "anti-Islamic" and "anti-American."It isn't unreasonable to think that Mssrs. Awad and Ahmed side with the terrorists more frequently than most Americans would. These statements cause me to question whether they couldn't rationalize away any terrorist actions.
Let's find out who Mr. Marzook is:
Among the SDGTs named is Musa Abu Marzook, who currently serves as the Deputy Chief of Hamas' Political Bureau in Syria. Prior to working out of Syria, Marzook was responsible for establishing a major base of international financial and political support for Hamas, right here in the United States.Why do Mssrs. Awad and Ahmed think that it's "anti-Islamic" and "anti-American" to extradite someone whose organization's conventions' keynote speakers are terrorists who've committed mass murder? Furthermore, I'd like to know why CAIR reflexively defends Muslims? It's obvious that they'll reflexively defend Muslim whether they're overt terrorists like bin Laden and the Blind Sheikh or covert terrorists like Musa abu Marzook.
In 1981, Marzook founded the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) in Richardson, Texas. Throughout the decade, the organization featured Hamas terrorists and radical clerics as keynote speakers at its annual gatherings.
The 1989 convention in Kansas City was addressed by a veiled terrorist who recounted the sabotaging of a bus that killed 16 people in Israel.
It's impossible to read CAIR's statements and not question whether they're terrorists themselves. After all that I've read, I can't say that they've committed acts of terrorism but their reflexive defense of terrorists is akin to defending the indefensible.
Posted Saturday, October 21, 2006 9:23 AM
August 2006 Posts
No comments.
