|
CAIR –March 15, 2007
Washington Times refuses to publish
responses to biased coverage
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 15, 2007 - Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called the right-wing Washington Times newspaper "beyond hypocritical" for claiming to support a "robust media" while refusing to publish responses to alleged anti-Muslim bias in its reporting and commentary.
The newspaper made that claim in an editorial today attacking the Washington-based group. In its editorial, the paper also falsely portrayed American Muslims as recent immigrants, despite the fact that the Islamic community has deep historical roots in this nation, beginning with the Muslim slaves who were brought to America from West Africa.
The Times editorial stated: "This is a lesson [about a robust media] our Muslim brothers will learn sooner or later as they become accustomed to life in America."
In a statement, CAIR said:
"It is beyond hypocritical for a newspaper long known for its Islamophobic content to claim to defend a 'robust media' while at the same time refusing to publish responses from those it smears."
As evidence of the Washington Times' refusal to publish editorial responses from Muslims, CAIR cited a letter to the editor it sent to the paper earlier this week. That letter, headlined "Washington Times Seeks to Silence American Muslims," has not appeared in that newspaper. It stated in part:
"It seems that Internet searches of extremist anti-Muslim blogs have replaced responsible journalism at the Washington Times. That can be the only explanation for the laundry list of recycled smears, distortions and outright falsehoods littered throughout S.A. Miller's hatchet job on the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), America's largest Islamic civil liberties group.
"CAIR is a grass-roots expression of American Muslims who resolved to rise to the challenges facing our society, namely to confront intolerance and promote justice. As the nation's largest Muslim civil rights group, CAIR's 32 chapters bring together Americans from every walk of life. The diversity represented by CAIR's staff, volunteers and supporters is a reflection of the diversity of America.
"We are the same group that launched an online petition drive, called 'Not in the Name of Islam,' designed to demonstrate Muslim repudiation of terrorism and religious extremism. CAIR is also the group that launched a television public service announcement campaign of that same name and coordinated a 'fatwa,' or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism. . .
"Just a few of the falsehoods and distortions in Miller's article include: 1. Despite what Miller falsely claims, CAIR has no ties of any kind, whether financial or ideological, to terrorism. 2. Rabih Haddad was never a 'CAIR fundraiser.' He spoke at a single CAIR chapter event many years ago. 3. Ghassan Elashi was not a 'founding board member' of CAIR. 4. At least one CAIR official spoke to the reporter, despite the false claim in the article that 'CAIR officials did not return a call seeking comment.'. . ."
Another letter, as yet unpublished, sent from Lebanon to the Washington Times (and copied to CAIR) by the above-mentioned Rabih Haddad states:
"Allow me to express my extreme dismay and disappointment in the level of unprofessional and erroneous reporting exhibited in [the article smearing CAIR] in which the writer states: 'However, CAIR officials have been charged with -- and some convicted of -- offenses related to the support of terrorism, including CAIR fundraiser Rabih Haddad'. . .
"This is a total fabrication as far as I am concerned and I would strongly recommend that your reporters and writers do a little deeper research on their pieces than the average Google search to get their facts straight. I was never a CAIR official, not that I wouldn't have been proud to be included among them, and to this day I have not been charged with any thing save overstaying my visit visa which I was in the process of remedying when I was arrested. . ."
Haddad demanded an apology and a retraction.
"The Islamophobic articles and commentaries in the Washington Times are apparently designed to marginalize and disenfranchise American Muslims and their representative institutions by exploiting growing anti-Islam sentiment in our society," said CAIR Legislative Director Corey Saylor.
Saylor, the author of CAIR's letter to the Times, added: "The fact that CAIR comes under attack by anti-Muslim extremists should come as no surprise to anyone who works for positive social change. All proponents of justice, including leading organizations in America's civil rights movement, have faced similar attacks designed to silence their voices."
A front-page article in yesterday's New York Times quoted government officials as saying CAIR's critics engage in McCarthyite tactics. The article stated:
"More than one [government official] described the standards used by critics to link CAIR to terrorism as akin to McCarthyism, essentially guilt by association. 'Of all the groups, there is probably more suspicion about CAIR, but when you ask people for cold hard facts, you get blank stares,' said Michael Rolince, a retired F.B.I. official who directed counterterrorism in the Washington field office from 2002 to 2005."
Saylor challenged the Washington Times to balance its Muslim-bashing content with commentaries solicited from credible sources in the mainstream American Muslim community. "Washington Times readers deserve more than agenda-driven hit pieces designed to silence Muslims and smear their institutions."
[CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 32 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.]
Washington Times - March 15, 2007
Radicals on the Hill
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) doesn't have much tolerance for a robust media. Legitimate reporters and editors in America disdain propaganda as news, and politicians, advocates, churchmen, celebrities and just about everybody else of whatever stripe understands that. This is a lesson our Muslim brothers will learn sooner or later as they become accustomed to life in America.
CAIR summoned reporters to its Capitol Hill headquarters to announce that a group of imams are filing suit against US Airways and the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, claiming that the "flying imams" were barred from a flight last November "on the basis of their perceived race, religion, color, ethnicity, alienate, ancestry and national origin." CAIR employed Martin Luther King's language from the civil-rights struggle to suggest that the imams were victims of stereotyping and mistreatment. "When anyone's rights are diminished, the rights of all Americans are threatened," said CAIR Director Nihad Awad. Fair enough as rhetoric, we suppose, though Dr. King never tried to use the rituals of his faith to intimidate anyone.
CAIR and the "flying imams" are unhappy with this newspaper's coverage of the incident, and especially with Audrey Hudson, who first reported that witnesses and law-enforcement officials contradicted the imams' assertions that they were merely praying before their flight. Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse, repeatedly shouting "Allah," when passengers were called for their flight to Phoenix.
Passengers and flight attendants said the imams switched from their assigned seats to seat themselves in a pattern reminiscent of the September 11 attacks. One air marshal called the seating arrangement "alarming" because the imams "now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane." Witnesses and law-enforcement officials said the imams exhibited behavior associated with a "security probe" -- when terrorists take certain preliminary steps to see how law-enforcement and security officials react.
Several days after Miss Hudson's dispatch appeared in this newspaper in December, Mr. Awad scolded The Washington Times in an interview with the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper, for "falling below journalistic standards and decency." He was unhappy not for misstatements of fact, but particularly because Miss Hudson quoted Zuhdi Jasser, a Phoenix physician and a Muslim critic of CAIR. The organization is no doubt unhappy as well with S.A. Miller's story in The Times on Monday, noting that Rep. Bill Pascrell, New Jersey Democrat, had reserved a room in the Capitol for a CAIR event, though the organization has been associated with fairly suspicious characters, including several who have been sent to prison for their involvement with jihadist terror networks. CAIR doesn't like such coverage, but reporting the news is what newspapers do. The way to stop unfavorable coverage is to straighten up and fly right. Shooting the messenger, as any successful American advocacy group could tell them, never works.
http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20070314-095355-8422r
New York Times - March 14, 2007
Scrutiny increases for a group
advocating for Muslims in U.S.
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
With violence across the Middle East fixing Islam smack at the center of the American political debate, an organization partly financed by donors closely identified with wealthy Persian Gulf governments has emerged as the most vocal advocate for American Muslims — and an object of wide suspicion.
The group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, defines its mission as spreading the understanding of Islam and protecting civil liberties. Its officers appear frequently on television and are often quoted in newspapers, and its director has met with President Bush. Some 500,000 people receive the group’s daily e-mail newsletter.
Yet a debate rages behind the scenes in Washington about the group, commonly known as CAIR, its financing and its motives. A small band of critics have made a determined but unsuccessful effort to link it to Hamas and Hezbollah, which have been designated as terrorist organizations by the State Department, and have gone so far as calling the group an American front for the two.
In the latest confrontation yesterday, CAIR held a panel discussion on Islam and the West in a Capitol meeting room despite demands by House Republicans that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, not allow the event. The Republicans called its members “terrorist apologists.”
Caley Gray, a spokesman for Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., a New Jersey Democrat who helped book the room, rejected that label in a phone interview and said CAIR held similar meetings when Congress was controlled by Republicans. Still, Mr. Gray called back to specify that Mr. Pascrell did not endorse all of the group’s positions.
Last fall, Senator Barbara Boxer of California issued a routine Certificate of Appreciation to the organization representative in Sacramento, but she quickly revoked it when critics assailed her on the Web under headlines like “Senators for Terror.”
“There are things there I don’t want to be associated with,” Ms. Boxer said later of the revocation, explaining that her California office had not vetted the group sufficiently.
CAIR and its supporters say its accusers are a small band of people who hate Muslims and deal in half-truths. Ms. Boxer’s decision to revoke the Sacramento commendation provoked an outcry from organizations that vouch for the group’s advocacy, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the California Council of Churches.
“They have been a leading organization that has advocated for civil rights and civil liberties in the face of fear and intolerance, in the face of religious and ethnic profiling,” said Maya Harris, the executive director of the A.C.L.U. of Northern California.
Government officials in Washington said they were not aware of any criminal investigation of the group. More than one described the standards used by critics to link CAIR to terrorism as akin to McCarthyism, essentially guilt by association.
“Of all the groups, there is probably more suspicion about CAIR, but when you ask people for cold hard facts, you get blank stares,” said Michael Rolince, a retired F.B.I. official who directed counterterrorism in the Washington field office from 2002 to 2005.
Outreach to all Muslims via groups they support is an important aspect of ensuring that extremists cannot get a foothold here as they have in Europe, Mr. Rolince said.
The cloud kicked up by the constant scrutiny is such that spokesmen at several federal agencies refused to comment about the group and some spoke only on the condition of anonymity.
After a brief interview, Ms. Boxer declined to answer additional questions about the commendation to the Sacramento representative, Basim Elkarra. A spokeswoman, Natalie Ravitz, said in an e-mail message that the senator had decided “to put this entire incident behind her.”
Joe Kaufman, who Ms. Boxer’s office said first drew her attention to CAIR’s reputation, is the founder of a Web site that tracks what he calls the group’s extremism, cairwatch.com. Other critics include the Investigative Project, a conservative group that tries to identify terrorist organizations, and the Middle East Forum, a conservative research center that says its goal is to promote American interests in the region.
“You can’t fight a war on terrorism directly when you are acting with a terror front,” said Mr. Kaufman, who advocates shutting down the organization.
Founded in 1994, CAIR had eight chapters at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the group, but has grown to some 30 chapters as American Muslims have felt unjustly scrutinized ever since.
Broadly summarized, critics accuse CAIR of pursuing an extreme Islamist political agenda and say at least five figures with ties to the group or its leadership have either been convicted or deported for links to terrorist groups. They include Mousa Abu Marzook, a Hamas leader deported in 1997 after the United States failed to produce any evidence directly linking him to any attacks.
There were no charges linked to CAIR in any of the cases involved, and law enforcement officials said that in the current climate, any hint of suspicious behavior would have resulted in a racketeering charge.
The group’s officials say the accusations are rooted in its refusal to endorse the American government’s blanket condemnations of Hezbollah and Hamas, although it has criticized Hamas for civilian deaths.
Several federal officials said CAIR’s Washington office frequently issued controversial statements that made it hard for senior government figures to be associated with the group, particularly since some pro-Israeli lobbyists have created what one official called a “cottage industry” of attacking the group and anyone dealing with it.
Last summer, the group urged a halt to weapons shipments to Israel as civilian casualties in Lebanon swelled. In September, it held a dinner for former President Mohamed Khatami of Iran at a time when much of official Washington had ostracized that Islamic republic. In November, the group sponsored a panel discussion by two prominent academics who argue that the pro-Israeli lobby exercises detrimental influence on United States policy on the Middle East.
“Traditionally within the government there is only one point of view that is acceptable, which is the pro-Israel line,” said Nihad Awad, a founder of CAIR and its executive director. “Another enlightened perspective on the conflict is not there, and it causes some discomfort.”
When Mr. Bush visited a Washington mosque in 2001, Mr. Awad was among the Muslim leaders he met. But Dana M. Perino, a White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Awad had not been invited to any recent iftars, annual dinners to break the fast during the holy month of Ramadan. She offered no explanation.
This year, when Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales met with the leaders of half a dozen Muslim and Arab-American organizations in his office, no representative from CAIR was invited.
When Karen P. Hughes, the close adviser to Mr. Bush and under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, started interacting with the group, she was criticized as dealing with “Wahhabis,” shorthand for Saudi-inspired religious extremists, a State Department spokesman said.
CAIR has raised some suspicion by accepting large donations from individuals or foundations closely identified with Arab governments. It has an annual operating budget of around $3 million, and the group said it solicited major donations for special projects, like $500,000 from Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia to help distribute the Koran and other books about Islam in the United States, some of which generated controversy.
The donations are a source of contention within CAIR itself. Several branch directors said they had avoided foreign financing and had criticized the national office for it.
Officials at other Arab-American and Muslim organizations said there was a decided split between how the national office operated and how the branches did. The branch offices, which raise their own money and operate largely as franchises, concentrate on local civil rights problems and hence develop close working relationships with law enforcement.
When the Southern California chapter threw itself a birthday party last November, nearly 2,000 people packed the Anaheim Hilton’s ballroom to hear guests of honor praise the organization, including J. Stephen Tidwell, the director of the F.B.I.’s Los Angeles office.
“I am very excited to be here,” Mr. Tidwell told a reporter covering the fund-raiser for an Arab-American television news channel, calling CAIR “an important bridge for the F.B.I. into the Muslim, Arab-American community.”
The Washington office, the officials at the other Arab-American and Muslim groups said, tends to fight more image battles because its main staff members have backgrounds in public relations. Still, they said, CAIR’s contrarian image helps with fund-raising both in the American Muslim community and among Arab governments because both believe that the federal government is biased against them.
Some Muslims, particularly the secular, find CAIR overly influenced by Saudi religious interpretations, criticizing it for stating in news releases, for example, that all Muslim women are required to veil their hair when the matter is openly debated.
But they still support its civil rights work and endorse the idea of anyone working to make American Islam a more integral part of society. One Arab-American advocate compared CAIR to “the tough cousin who curses at anyone who speaks badly about the family.”
Some activists and academics view the controversy surrounding the group as typical of why Washington fails so often in the Middle East, while extremism mushrooms.
“How far are we going to keep going in this endless circle: ‘You are a terrorist!’ ‘No, you are a terrorist!’? ” said Souleiman Ghali, one of the founders of a moderate San Francisco mosque. “People are paying a price for that.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14cair.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
|
