July 31, 2005
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Recently there has been a lot of discussion about western Islamic groups denouncing terrorism. Like many of us I said ‘Finally!’ and started reading more about who was saying what. And, just as I was afraid, the media isn’t looking close enough at the story to give it an accurate account. With the media, things aren’t always what they seem.
Taking a closer look at the statement, you only have to look at who made the statement to see something is up. The 'ruling' was made by the FCNA (Fiqh Council of North America) and CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). What is wrong with these groups? Well, the knowledge that they have extensive ties to terrorist activities and groups in the past displays a bit of hypocrisy on their part.
For example:
* Abdurraham Alamoudi, head of the American Muslim council and American Muslim Foundation and trustee of the Fiqh Council of North America was subsequently convicted of immigration fraud and plead guilty to a plot in which he was going to assassinate the leader of Saudi Arabia on behalf of Al Qaeda associates in London. He was sentenced to 23 years in prison. He also facilitated the transfer of approximately $1 million to Al-Qaida from an organization called the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (MIRA), a U.K.-based Saudi oppositionist group, a group designated a terrorist organization by Treasury as well as admitted to taking part in a Libyan plot to assassinate Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for which he was sentenced to 23 years in prison.
* Taha Jaber Al-Alawani, President of the Fiqh Council of North America, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami al-Arian, the alleged North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and is an official of several organizations, including the SAFA Group, which the government suspects is related to a network of terrorist entities.
* Sheikh Muhammad al-Hoonati, member of the Fiqh Council of North America, was formerly the president of IAP, a part of the HAMAS propaganda machine.
* Ghassan Elashi was a founding Board Member of CAIR-Texas. Elashi was also Chairman and Treasurer of HLF and Vice President of Marketing for Infocom, a computer export company. Elashi was convicted on July 7, 2004 of six counts, including false statements, conspiracy to violate the Export Administrations Regulations and the Libyan Sanctions Regulations, and conspiracy to file false Shipper's Export Declaration forms. Infocom was found guilty on all ten counts with which it was charged. Additionally, Ghasan Elashi and his brothers Basman and Bayan were found guilty of the Marzook-related charges on April 13, 2004. Additionally, on July 27, 2004, Elashi, HLF, and six other HLF officials were indicted for providing material support to Hamas, engaging in prohibited financial transactions with a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, money laundering, conspiracy and filing false tax returns
* Rabih Haddad was co-founder of the Global Relief Foundation, whose assets the U.S. government froze on December 14, 2001 for financially supporting Al Qaeda and was subsequently deported to Lebanon.
In addition, CAIR has a history of opposing US Government involvement against individuals suspected of involvment in terrorist activities.
So, what does this mean to the statements? Is it a marked change in the leadership and direction of the organizations or is it lip service by the groups in order to continue functioning as a valid organization while using it as a cover to continue supporting terrorists and terrorist activities?
Unfortunately we may have our answer already.
Radio talk-show host Michael Graham was suspended by station WMAL-AM for repeatedly describing Islam as a 'Terrorist Organization' on his radio program. Graham said he has been ordered off the Washington station, without pay, for an indefinite period while the station investigates the comments that drew complaints from a Muslim group, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). (source)
While I am not ready to completely denounce the statement made by this group, it is obvious that the welcome statement should unfortunately be taken with a grain of salt and continued monitoring should take place before we know for sure.
Posted by Rhinehold at July 31, 2005 11:50 PMRhinehold,
Shortly after I posted my more hopeful reaction (naive though I may have been) to this recent fatwa, I discovered some material suggesting that indeed the groups associated with it have a questionable past with ties to terrorism. One can hope that there is a true change of heart going on here, though like you I am skeptical of their motives. Still, I would suggest that it is a good thing that they are taking the public stand they are. Perhaps some who don’t know of their likely duplicity will be influenced for the good. Perhaps discussion will be spawned among other Muslims fed up with the hijacking of their religion by radical elements therein. Perhaps the fact that they felt the need to make such a public statement presages a welcome shift in thinking among Muslims.
Even if these groups are absolutely phony, I don’t believe that many of those quoted in this article are, and they speak in very plain language about the need for moderates to speak out, while condemning those who try to have it both ways.
Good article - your skepticism seems warranted - but perhaps a little hope is in order as well.
Posted by: Walker Willingham at August 1, 2005 12:50 AMThis assumes that Palestinians do not have a right to oppose the Israeli Occupation of their Land.
Posted by: Aldous at August 1, 2005 04:54 AMRhinehold, we often take opposing sides on issues. But, I have to commend, in light of the facts and information that you have assembled, your conclusions. I have nothing but the highests respect for your unwillingness to jump to the conclusions which the information set appears to lead. Instead, you maintain a position of caution and vigilence while requiring more concrete evidence and proof be established. I was not aware of the facts and information you provided. Having read them however, I reach exactly the same position as you. There is need for concern and vigilence but also for more concrete evidence before jumping to the conclusions that Islamic Community organizations in America are terrorist backers and supporters.
We may find that a few of its members are, and that most of its members are not. We may find the organizations are designed to take advantage of Patriotic Islamic Americans through deception and misdirection in eliciting their unwitting support for terrorist acts against America and its allies. And it may be true that these American organizations are American in purpose and intent but, that there are a few individuals who seek to subvert those honorable purposes and intents to evil purposes. We just don’t have sufficient evidence, yet.
But, I thank you for making me aware so that I better evaluate forthcoming information that may have relevance to these organizations. The possibility of terrorist cells in America is very real, and the possibility for their agents to try to avail themselves of the resources of otherwise American patriotic Islamic organizations through deceptions and misdirection is also very real. Thanks to you and your article, I am more aware of what to look for in the news of the future to help me stay abreast of where this story and the facts lead.
Very educational and much appreciated.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2005 05:04 AMRhinehold, on Michael Graham, however, it would appear prudent for the station to put him on leave without pay for such an inflammatory and blatantly false statement. Islam is a religion, and the vast majority of its believers seek, peace, prosperity, and freedom. Like Christianity, Islam has a violent past and passages in its holy book which can support violence and atrocity in the name of justice and vengeance (and eye for eye and tooth for tooth).
These facts however do not support the condemnation of the religion and all its followers. Islam also holds up the virtues of peace, and tolerance, and mercy and the vast majority of its followers ascribe more to these passages than the former, just as the majority of Christians do to the text of the New Testament vs. that of the old where peace, tolerance and mercy override the violence and vigilantism of the Old Testament.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2005 05:17 AMInteresting. I suppose if bin Laden renounced terrorism, I’d be skeptical too. On the other hand, many people listen to and respect these clerics. Unless the whole Muslim community is in on the conspiracy, this seems like a good thing.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 1, 2005 11:02 AMRhinehold,
Excellent piece, well presented and certainly timely. Thank you.
David Remer,
Terrific follow up posts as well.
The eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth reference you gave is of course from the Code of Hammurabi meaning “The notion that for every wrong done, there should be a compensating measure of justice” when used in the Christian Bible, Matthew 5:38 “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is followed by passages from Jesus Christ that the reaction should be “Turn the other cheek”.
Steve, thanks. I had long forgotten the Code of Hammurabi connection. The Old Testament is by definition derived from codes, histories, myths etc. of pre-Christian societies. I found the history of the spread of ancient mythology and religious constructs by Alexander all the way to India and points east, to be very fascinating.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2005 11:27 AMWestern Islamic Groups should not only denounce terrorism but they should do it frequently and with as high visibility as possible.
Quite honestly I am very surprised that people living in this country who have the appearance of being from a Middle Eastern country have not been more harrassed and/or assaulted than has been reported.
Please do not now brand me as a racially biased person or comment that my statement is a sterotypical conservative/right wing one. I am truly surprised that we have not seen more anomosity in the form of physical harm directed at these folks. I am, actually thankful for this.
Posted by: steve smith at August 1, 2005 11:58 AMI have heard that these groups have not translated to arabic nor posted it on the net.
It is said to be only for anglo’s to read
Posted by: George at August 1, 2005 08:24 PMThat’s because it IS for Anglo’s to read. To translate the Fatwa to Arabic would require explaining why Israel is justified in Occupying Palestine, why the French was justified in Occupying Algeria and why America is justified in Occupying Iraq.
Posted by: Aldous at August 2, 2005 04:39 AM
