CAIR Meeting
Posted February 13th, 2006 by Chip Bok
I met with Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) leaders on Friday afternoon. I didn't catch the protest before the meeting where I'm told speakers demanded that I be fired and a curse was called down on The Beacon Journal.
Though I was outnumbered about 15 to 1 in the meeting, my hosts were an agreeable lot. They disavowed violence and the curse. They patiently explained to me that Islam is a religion of peace. Many of them were from other countries and appreciated the American commitment to freedom of religion. They also supported freedom of the press. Except for one thing. They don't like pictures of Muhammad. My explanation that the Muhammad on acid cartoon was about CNN's digital distortion of the prophet's face did not impress them. They seemed genuinely hurt by the cartoon.
I said the cartoon made a point and offensiveness was a byproduct. They felt that offensiveness was the point.
Maybe they had a point. When I drew it I wasn't thinking about the mostly friendly faces that were now questioning me. I was thinking of Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch film maker murdered by an Islamic lunatic, burning embassies, and threats to cut off cartoonist's heads. All those things were done in the name of Islam. Those things are a greater blasphemy than a cartoon. Right?
My hosts condemned the terrorists and dismissed them as a small percentage of a huge religion of 1.3 billion people.
They were thinking of their religion as they know it. I was thinking of their religion as I see it.
February 14th, 2006 at 12:02 am
Why do I think that CAIR is an apologetic face for terrorism?
Only a small percentage of muslims in the world are rioting against these cartoons? Gimme a break. There is truly a war between societies - the West, and the neo-neaderthal muslim thrid world countries who are rolling in black gold.
February 14th, 2006 at 2:55 am
"They were thinking of their religion as they know it. I was thinking of their religion as I see it."
And therein lies the rub. Their extremists are indeed what most Westerners associate with Islam. It may or may not be true, but in a free society such opposites as peace vs. violence will be questioned.
Dearest Muslims…in a free society one is often judged by their actions. Actions speak louder than words. Claims of peaceful religion will come under fire and even the placards of violence, burning embassies, murders, and death threats from the protests affirm what the West observes.
How can one come to know supposed peaceful Islam if one cannot trust the words, because the actions seem to contradict them. Some of the cartoons have been offensive, but some of your offense needs/should be directed towards an examination of yourselves.
What have you done to perpetuate those violent images you find offensive? Stood silent in the face of terrorism, cheered at thousands of fellow Americans perished, laughed at 7/7? One can deny all these things on their face but, as long as mosques are uncovered in England filled with explosives & guns to Imams leading congregations here in the US with ties to terrorists and falsifying immigration documents to money laundering, I will bet that non-muslims will continue to see Islam as terrorism.
The cartoons were offensive, but not truly mean-spirited, as you would like to believe. The anger is misdirected at the outside world and needs to be directed internally. The truth of the cartoons is what the West observes as Islam, however right or wrong that observation is, it is the overpowering message.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:33 am
The proof is in the pudding. If the majority of the Muslim world is, indeed, outraged by terrorists and the folks who set embassies on fire as a form of protest, why do they have to keep telling us this? Why isn't it obvious?
The answer is that huge rallies protesting cartoons can be whipped up in a heartbeat, while rallies protesting terrorism just aren't to be found.
As for offensiveness… Well, we don't have a right to not be offended. Everyone is offended by something, and everything is always going to offend someone.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:06 am
Mr. Bok,
YOU rock. In the face of mindless opposition you stood your ground and the Truth is with you. The Image of Islam is forever the image of Theo Van Gogh dead in the street with a note "attached" to his body with the help of a knife.
If it weren't trademarked already I'd call you "Rokenbok." Because you ROCK.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:39 am
I have moved your blog to the first thing I check on line. You DO rock!
February 14th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Frankly, I would have been perfectly happy had you told your CAIR interrogators to go collectively fornicate themselves with a bacon-wrapped tuning fork.
What CAIR cannot (or in my mind WILL not) understand is the fact that if the people who do violence in the name of Islam is but a "tiny minority", then as the "majority" they have the duty to stand up and protest loudly AGAINST violence in the name of Islam.
Islam is headed for a reformation much like the Roman Catholic church had from the 1500s to the 1700s. It is purely up to those of the Islamic faith whether the reformation comes from within, or it is imposed from the outside.
February 14th, 2006 at 10:43 am
I can not help but recalling in the New Testament Jesus said that after him there will be false prophets who will come in peace and deceive many, but by their fruits shall ye know them. I can not think of a more apt description for the CAIR meeting.
In 1996, a learned Catholic theologian, a cardinal in Europe who had extensively studied Islam, concluded that Islam was incapable of internal reform for reasons that Islamic teaching regards the Koran as the final literal uninterpretable word of God. He compared this to Judeo-Christian tradition that regards the Torah and Bible as the inspired word of God.
The reformation and enlightment, and the Talmud, arose internally from Christian and Jewish scholars seeking the truth and challenging misapplications of the literal word as is dictated in these religious traditions. He concluded that this seeking of moral truth can not occur internally within Islam, since such is deemed apostacy in Islam. Indeed, Islam in the Koran itself, asserts that Jews and Christians corrupted the absolute word of God by such moral truth seeking. The cardinal was Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI.
February 14th, 2006 at 10:47 am
The non-extremist Muslims' silence is deafening.
Where are the pressures from within the religion to balance the sane with the insane?
Where are the leaders of the moderates, and why haven't they staged themselves across from the radicals at these demonstrations with hopes of toning/calming/stopping the situation(s)?
Where is the 'moderate' voice of Islam?
I don't see it and I don't hear it.
What I believe is what has happened with us in the past. ie: the Japanese sitting across from us and saying one thing and communicating orders overseas to commence the strike on Pearl Harbor.
If what these moderates say is true, that they are a religion of peace, then why aren't they 'pushing' their message.
I believe that deception/al-taqiyya is at play here. And these individuals would not see anything wrong with deception, especially since taqiyya isn't considered a sin among Muslims. It's considered a *method*.
A practiced method. So, of course, you would have seen sincere faces.
later…
http://www.isralert.com/archives/2005/03/deceit_thy_name.php
DECEIT, THY NAME IS ISLAMISM
Al-Takeyya is a policy whereby a Muslim may lie, deceive or omit critical truths if it promotes the spreading of Islam AND the conquest of the non-Muslim world. According to William P. Welty, Ph.D., al-Takeyya/Taqiyya is:
"The Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Falsehoods told to prevent denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned by the Qur'an, including lying under penalty of perjury in testimony before the United States Congress, lying or making distorted statements to the media such as claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and deceiving fellow Muslims when the one lying has deemed them to be apostates." (1)
February 14th, 2006 at 11:00 am
They may not like pictures of Mohammed, but Mr. Bok presented a picture of a body with a blank face, typically as used in Islamic art. How would Mr. Bok's host at CAIR explain this?
In 1784, Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais penned the stage comedy Marriage of Figaro, which was later adapted by Mozart for the great opera of the same name. In Act 5, Scene 3, Beaumarchais wrote:
"I cobble together a verse comedy about the customs of the harem, assuming that, as a Spanish writer, I can say what I like about Mohammed without drawing hostile fire. Next thing, some envoy from God knows where turns up and complains that in my play I have offended the Ottoman empire, Persia, a large slice of the Indian peninsula, the whole of Egypt, and the kingdoms of Barca {Ethiopia}, Tripoli, Tunisi, Algeria, and Morocco. And so my play sinks without trace, all to placate a bunch of Muslim princes, not one of whom, as far as I know, can read but who beat the living daylights out of us and say we are 'Christian dogs.' Since they can't stop a man thinking, they take it out on his hide instead…"
February 14th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Chip,
Perhaps I could write a long diatribe stating statistics and long winded political flim flam, but I won't. Your CNN\mahammad cartoon was right on the mark.
Anyone with a degree of intelligence would understand your editorial cartoon bent towards CNN, only those with a political purpose would wish to inflame it.
While I do not often agree with your politcal cartoons, I will state that your Cheney cartoon was humorous. I'll additionally state DO NOT MISS ONE SECOND OF SLEEP BY CAIR.
Lastly, I often think of whom I would have envisioned me protecting while in the military if a conflict were to break out, rest assured I'd have your back…others, I would second guess.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Mr. Bok, do not be easily fooled. One of the original founders of CAIR stated that Islam was in the U.S. to become the dominant religion. The important thing to remember is that actions speak louder than words. Where are the actions to back up the so-called moderates? They seem to spend a lot more time worrying about cartoons than the actions of their co-religionists.
February 14th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Why do all these Muslims hate the West. We are so generous, courteous and benevolent. Why, we are sacrificing our sons and daughters in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world, so they can have democracy.And what do we get in return? Sure we have killed a few innocent people, but all is fair in love and war. All we want is to liberate Muslim women from their opressors. We want free trade and flow of oil. Is that too much to ask? What do all these Muslims in Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, the Phillipines and China want from us? Why do the Iranians want Nuclear energy? They have oil. We could sell them energy. I don't know. May be some of you could enlighten me.
February 15th, 2006 at 6:56 am
Muslim organizations, Muslim leaders and individual Muslims have condemned terrorism time and time again. For those of you who say you haven't heard it, well, you haven't been listening. CAIR itself sends out a condemnation immediately whenever there's any incident involving Muslims anywhere in the world. As a matter of fact, their national website still lists condemnations of the 9/11 attacks (and it's only a partial list) at http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html.
And I'm just curious… Do any of you feel compelled to issue condemnations whenever your co-religionists commit atrocities? Did you condemn and apologize for the actions at Abu Ghraib? Or are we Muslims supposed to realize that those soldiers who are torturing and killing Iraqis are just "bad apples", while you're justified in assuming that the actions of any one Muslim must reflect on the other billion and a half? Do you apologize for every murder committed by an American? (I think there are about 10,000 every year just by guns, and thousands more by other methods - and that's just inside the U.S.; it doesn't count the tens of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places.)
February 15th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Ann:
…CAIR itself sends out a condemnation…
Do you want me to list the high level CAIR members who have been deported for ties with terrorists? Or how about this statement from its co-founder, Omar Ahmad:
Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
Maybe you can explain why CAIR felt the need to photoshop hijabs on women at a press conference.
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19548
I can go on, but I believe I have made my point. CAIR is a PR front for jihad. I take what they say pretty much as lies.
Do any of you feel compelled to issue condemnations whenever your co-religionists commit atrocities?
Yes I do. When people are professing they were killing abortion doctors for Christian reasons, I stand firmly against that. All of the major Christian organizations renounced that behavior also. Now, the rest of your examples are weak. We call on Muslims to renounce the terrorism, violence, and totalitarianism for two reasons. First, the jihadists are declaring they are committing the violence in the name of Islam. Second, Islam is filled with violent and totalitarian concepts. Either Muslims renounce both or it's worthless. Also, you need to realize that Muslims often understand terms such as peace, terrorism, freedom, etc. differently than the commonly accepted Western definitions. When you look at the condemnations using Muslim understandings of the terms, you start to see that there are huge loopholes in the statements.
Finally, your link is broken.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:48 am
There's no point in discussing this with someone who gets (dis)information from Robert Spencer. For anyone who actually wants accurate information, though, I hope you look for it from someone else.
The problem with the link is just the period at the end; try it without: http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html
February 15th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Yes, Ann. Here in the States we have courts of law that try murderers. We don't reward their families and promise them life in paradise where they are serviced by virgins.
February 15th, 2006 at 10:23 am
I am offended by the hijabs. Just looking at them enrages me for the oppression they represent. I am a Humanist thus my offense could be interpreted as religiously based. BUT, I do not have the right or the justification to demand that Muslim woman be forced to adhere to my beliefs simply because I am offended. Nothing gives me the right to demand any other person be forced to respect my belief by denying their own.
It doesn't matter if parts of a religious group stand up and condemn acts performed by others in their group. The mistake here is suggesting that condemnation of the violent offenders in a faith is condemnation of the faith. Why, when people point out violence for what it is, do Muslim groups assume we are condemning the faith. I don't condemn Christians in general for the idiots who kill abortionist in God's name I simply condemn the killer. The same is true for the violent factions of Islam.
Factions of Islam would hold all foreigners accountable for the actions of a newspaper in Denmark. Factions of the world will hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few rioters. Both are wrong.
The trouble with the world is that it is filled with people and people will always disappoint in the long run. Individuals can be heroes but groups will always become icky no matter what their original intention. This is the human condition.
February 15th, 2006 at 10:30 am
I don't want to just *hear* how CAIR or others are opposed to terrorism; I want to *see* it. I want to see thousands of angry Muslims out in the streets protesting terrorism the way they're out protesting cartoons. If they're as outraged as they say they are about terrorism, shouldn't it be obvious?
February 15th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Ann:
"There's no point in discussing this with someone who gets (dis)information from Robert Spencer. For anyone who actually wants accurate information, though, I hope you look for it from someone else."
Okay, then are any of the statements I made in my post false? Or is this just a typical tactic of one who tries to avoid facts? If what I posted was disinformation, then you should be able to easily refute it.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Alianmil:
"I don't condemn Christians in general for the idiots who kill abortionist in God's name I simply condemn the killer."
Yet, let's say Christians continued to kill abortionists year-after-year in growing numbers and then someone did a cartoon that show Christianity in a bad way because of those killing. Now, if the response of Christians was to riot all over the world because the cartoons and demand apologies and threaten death, what would you think? Especially, what would you think if Christians hadn't done much in the way of denouncing the killers?
February 15th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
The actual rub here to me are the differences in ethics.
What are Islamic ethics?
Al-Taqiyyah and kitman are both ethical avenues given to the Muslim through the Koran. It's all spelled out for the believer and even translated into English.
And I presume that there isn't a 'moderate' Koran vs. a 'radical' Koran, right?
Given that there is just one Koran then I would have to say that there really isn't a distinction between the 'moderate' and the 'radical'.
Anything that CAIR has to say is either classified as al-taqiyyah or kitman, because the *truth* is, they haven't ~done~ anything to stop the activity that is 'radical' much less intervene on the illegal acts.
Either way… it's all lies and deception.
Their silence is resounding approval to the ears of the Muslim community.
later…
February 15th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
I have a simple question for you peaceful, moderate Muslims out there. We non-Muslims have a pretty clear idea of what the "murderous minority" of Muslims want us to do (i.e.,convert to Islam or die). This bunch seems bent on the violent domination of the Middle East and the destruction of the Western World and they appear to be pursuing this objective unhindered by what you insist is the peaceful majority of Muslims. Here's the question- What would YOU have us do? Basically we are just a bunch of people who want the freedom of our beliefs and are perfectly willing to grant the same to you so long as it does not involve the murder of us. Really doesn't seem like too much to ask.
This is not a rhetorical question. Please try to keep your answers simple. We are really trying to figure this out and the answer is eluding us.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Chip, You ROCK. Keep going brother.
February 16th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Muslims HATE White people! Don't you get it? They hate our freedom of speech, because in Britain, USA, Australia, etc, when we have truly free speech, we tell them to take their dog blankets and green ninja scarfs somewhere else. When we have semi-free speech, we tell them that our cartoons were meant to prove a point, not offend muslims.
February 16th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
"Muslims HATE White people! Don't you get it?"
I am sorry Mike, but just so you know there are some white, american muslims (Gasp!)
I just want to also add that I as a muslim do agree that cartoons are not as harmful to Islam as crazy people who blow up others! I respect all religions, because it gives us a connection to God and what we know.
Here is a novel idea, I think instead of us Muslims calling out against cartoonists in Denmark, we should call out against the lady who ran into the wedding reception. How about we rally to tell the small majority of ill thinking muslims that "this isn't God's way and we need to look closer to the Koran instead doing crazy stunts."
Well that's all I have to say I am sorry if I have offended anyone, but those are my thoughts
February 17th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Good Job! 'Mike' and 'Not interested in Jihad'
Bin Laden told us to leave their lands and stop supporting the dictators.
Fat chance. We need and want their oil and we want it cheap. And we are going to get it, like it or not. We can't have any of these countries to thumb their noses at us either. When Uncle Sam wants some thing, US gets it.
PEACE!!!!!!!!!!
March 7th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Okay, first of all aliannmil, the hijab is not an object of oppression upon Muslims. I wear the hijab wherever I go in public, including school, and I love it. Nobody forced me to wear the hijab. I choose to do it my self. I wear the hijab because I love God and it stands as a sign of modesty. Instead of going out in short skirts, revealed, and immodest, the hijab and my type of clothing that I wear covers me and protects me from the MANY harmful and dangerous things that happen in today's world. Also, I don't know where you got the idea that Islam oppresses women, but let me assure you, Islam grants women full rights. Women today might be oppressed by people who call themselves “Muslims”, but are not really following Islam. I do not have control over those kinds of people, but I can assure you that if you studied the Quran and the practice of Muhammed (peace and blessings be upon him), you would find that Islam does NOT support oppression of women AT ALL! Just because someone of the Christian religion murders someone, do I say that the Christian religion supports that? NOT AT ALL! So, let me ask you, why are you labeling Islam as an oppressive religion when all the proof you have is people who call themselves Muslims but are really not following Islam? Here-I have a suggestion. Why don’t you actually study Islam, the Quran, and the practices of the Prophet Muhammed (Peace and blessings be upon him) before you label Islam, just as I have not labeled Catholicism, Christianity, and other religions with false labels—especially not before studying them. (And trust me, I have studied Catholicism—I have been going to a Catholic school for 10 years)