The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has released details of a forthcoming report on claims of harrassment by Muslims in the U.S. in 2003 and they represent a 70% increase over claims in 2002. From CNN:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations said it received 1,019 claims of physical and verbal attacks on Muslims; on-the-job discrimination; and racial profiling by law enforcement.
In 2002, the organization received 602 such complaints.
According the Executive Summary of the report on CAIR’s website, there are five factors contributing to this increase:
- A lingering atmosphere of fear since the 9/11 attacks.
- The war in Iraq and the atmosphere created by the pro-war rhetoric.
- The noticeable increase of anti-Muslim rhetoric, which often painted Muslims as followers of a false religion and as enemies of America.
- The USA PATRIOT Act, the implementation of which has been associated with abuses.
- Increased reporting by community members, due to the increase in the number of CAIR offices, allowing more cases to be documented in 2003 than in previous years.
The third one is something I’ve been fighting tooth and nail across the blogosphere and in “real life” and it saddens me to see it’s on CAIR’s list (not that I imagined I was having much of an effect on my own, mind you, just that it’s the easiest one on the list to change).
The last time I posted statistics on harrassment against Muslims (not on this blog), others posted statistics about other groups that were meant to dwarf these numbers and make them seem insignificant. To avoid that pointless exercise again, I’ll repeat the main finding here: claims are up 70% over the previous year.
Sorry, but I don’t trust CAIR. CAIR has links to Hamas and one of its members trained with Al Qaeda. They are not a mere civil rights organization. Finally, anybody can file a claim (go here). When was this online form made available? Could it be credited with the increase of the reported claims? Has CAIR picked up its campaign seeking these claims? How many of these are valid?
Stan, most of your comments strike me as pure anti-Muslim bigotry, but I’ll pick up on the one valid point:
To file an incident report with CAIR, you must provide supporting documents (such as police reports).
I don’t know when CAIR first provided this online form to make reporting anti-Muslim hate crimes easier, but if making it easier to report was the reason for the 70% rise in hate crimes, it follows that you’re suggesting there has always been this level of anti-Muslim hate crime in the US – it’s just that it’s now easier for the victims to report it.
It may be happening, but I’m sure as hell not gonna take CAIR’s word for anything.
Commented here.
but I’m sure as hell not gonna take CAIR’s word for anything.
Got any reason for this, other than the obvious bigotry Stan displays?
The question ought to be how much does #5 account for it.
I also wish they would get into specifics about #4 since the actual results of the Patriot Act (as opposed to fear-mongering about it) is something that is worth investigating.
As a small aside, I detest it when hate-crime statistics mix “claims of physical and verbal attacks” together. I find it unhelpful when the ADL does it and I find it unhelpful here. Physical attacks and verbal insults are very different. If physical attacks have gone up significantly that represents a far more worrying trend than if verbal insults have gone up. The latter may still represent racism, but only the former represents a breakdown in the order of our community.
I would suggest that a good way to judge these statistics would be to ask CAIR if they include Professor Al-Arian’s arrest among them. If so, the statistics are probably worthless. If not, then CAIR shows that it can differentiate between actions with legitimate causes and true harrassment.
I have no idea how much of a bigot or not Stan is, but he’s correct that CAIR has had “terrorist links.” Sad, but true. The fact that something sounds bigoted doesn’t, alas, make in ipso facto false. (Yes, I could go googling to support this, but I’m about to go out the door on errands.)
(Yes, I could go googling to support this, but I’m about to go out the door on errands.)
When you get back, if you still feel like it… (I’m about to collapse with exhaustion, myself.)
Without being snarky, I’m honestly surprised that the increase has only been 70%.
However, I guess I’d ask that if the increase has been caused by the ease with which they can now be reported and anti-muslim bigotry has always been at this level, isn’t that a good thing since I’d have to guess that bigotry in general is driven by a number of “hard-core” haters, who lash out at anyone different from them depending on the circumstances?
Or do these haters generally have a favorite target? If so, then it would be clear that their efforts to enlist others are failing.
The affect of #5 is, to me, an important thing to understand in order to identify whether the danger to Muslims in the US (from non-Muslims, since its clear Muslim terrorists are willing to kill other Muslims the world over) is growing or not.
Also, here’s a group trying to help you out Edward.
Condemning CAIR is bigotry? LOL! Now that’s the best defining down of a word I’ve heard in a while. Well done Jes!
spc67, Jes is just being wrong (or uninformed or kneejerk or whatever you like) – that’s different from “defining down”.
I think you’re overreacting to CAIR, though – having had links to people who turned out to be bad doesn’t mean they’re a propaganda source. Which they might of course be – I haven’t seen that demonstrated, though.
Hope Gary paid his blogbill – can’t reach his site…
Never mind, Gary – I can’t reach blogspot in general.
Jesurgisla,
anti-Muslim? How so? Which part of my post did you get that from?
it follows that you’re suggesting there has always been this level of anti-Muslim hate crime in the US – it’s just that it’s now easier for the victims to report it.
Right. Hence, no upward trend.
Out of curiousity, has anyone gone out and bought a copy of the full CAIR report? I’m assuming that it’d include the raw statistical data of how many reports, of what types and in what locales: checking it against the previous year would pretty quickly tell us what kind of increase we were dealing with here.
Moe
“Hope Gary paid his blogbill – can’t reach his site…”
My bill for my free blogspot blog is entirely paid.
Try Again.
Rilke,
Thanks for the definitional correction
I think you’re overreacting to CAIR, though – having had links to people who turned out to be bad doesn’t mean they’re a propaganda source. Which they might of course be – I haven’t seen that demonstrated, though.
Such links certainly deprive them of the benefit of any doubt in my mind.
spc67 –
“Thanks for the definitional correction” – were you just being snarky above? Anyway, I mostly wanted to chide Jes for comity’s sake.
“Such links certainly deprive them of the benefit of any doubt in my mind.”
I think that’s rather too much like a partisan argument – I never have to listen to Senator X because he supported the Klan, or I won’t give Rumsfeld any benefit of the doubt after his handshake with Saddam.
Rilke,
No snark. I was wrong and you corrected me. I thanked you.
As for “partisan?” I’d call it a judgement about the reliability of a certain person or character. I discriminate between those who have been accurate or fair in the past, and those who haven’t. I don’t treat all sources as having equal credibility. For example, on business matters? The WSJ provides more accurate info than the NYT. On sports? The Boston Globe is better than the Sacramento Bee.
And I guess I was tone-deaf.
And I wasn’t saying you were taking a partisan tack – I entirely agree with your last comment – but I don’t think it’s the same approach as “they had a link to someone who turned out to be a terrorist so are a priori untrustworthy”. If nothing else, it’s assigning too much intentionality and unity to a national grassroots organization.
Rilkefan said: Jes is just being wrong
So was Stan LS. A kneejerk condemnation of a grassroots Muslim organization for “having links with Hamas” thus proving their reports on anti-Muslim attacks are unreliable looks damn like bigotry to me.
Spc67 said: Such links certainly deprive them of the benefit of any doubt in my mind.
Hamas was not, in fact, purely a terrorist organization in its beginnings. In the Occupied Territories, Hamas provided essential supplies to poverty-stricken Palestinian families: it was always a fundamentalist organization, but it was also a relief organization. Before the second intifada, when it became clear that supporting Hamas meant being accused of supporting terrorism, sending money to Hamas did not necessarily mean that you intended to fund suicide bombers, only that you intended to support Palestinians who were dependent on foreign aid thanks to the Israeli Occupation. Many Muslim charities have past links with Hamas, and should not be instantly condemned for it: if providing aid to the Palestinians is evidence of links with terrorism, then both the UNRWA and the Red Cross are condemned.
My feeling is that the easy kneejerk condemnation of any Muslim charity for links – however tenuous – with terrorist organizations, or organizations alleged to be terrorist, comes out of anti-Muslim feeling: an unwillingness to look at what a charity or an organization actually does, and a complete willingness to swallow whatever the media says it does.
“Hamas was not, in fact, purely a terrorist organization in its beginnings. In the Occupied Territories, Hamas provided essential supplies to poverty-stricken Palestinian families: it was always a fundamentalist organization, but it was also a relief organization.”
This is immensely naive, Jes. Please do some research. (Yes, respectfully, you have access to Google, and don’t need to ask me to do it for you.)
Out of curiousity, has anyone gone out and bought a copy of the full CAIR report?
Unless I misunderstood the article, the full report is being released Monday.
Two things happened on this thread that I had predicted would. First, the source of the data was questioned. I’ve seen plenty of anti-CAIR comments around the blogosphere (some by the same people who questioned it here) but the burden of proof goes one direction for them. They have no proof beyond a doubt that, as an organization (and not just via individuals assocaited with the organization) CAIR ever meant to support terrorism, but some hint of association leaves them feeling free to dismiss anything they publish until validated beyond a doubt. That clearly reveals a bias in my mind.
Second, without any data to the contrary, folks are arguing that there’s no real increase in harrassment. That clearly reveals wishful thinking.
A worthy dismissal of the numbers would not focus on the source (except in comparing it with another source) and point to contrasting data.
Do I believe CAIR wants to use the dramatic increase in their report to help Muslims in America? Yes. I believe they’ll spin it for all the press they can get, just like any other special interests group. Do I believe the knee-jerk rejections of the report without any supporting evidence are valid? Only as an indication of a bias against Muslims.
Jes,
kneejerk condemnation of a grassroots Muslim organization for “having links with Hamas”
Well, sorry for using facts:
In reality, CAIR is something quite different. For starters, it’s on the wrong side in the war on terrorism. 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.”
and
CAIR consistently defends other militant Islamic terrorists too. 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 Marook it labeled “anti-Islamic” and “anti-American.”
and
CAIR even includes at least one person associated with terrorism in its own ranks. On Feb. 2, 1995, U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named Siraj Wahhaj as one of the “unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments. Yet CAIR deems him “one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America” and includes him on its advisory board.
Hmmmm…
Aggressive ambitions. As reported by the San Ramon Valley Herald, CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”
By accusing me of anti-Muslim bigotry for condemning those who support terrorists – you are implying that all muslims support terrorists. Looks like you are the bigot here.
Hamas was not, in fact, purely a terrorist organization in its beginnings.
Irrelevant. Currently they are killing civilians and bragging about it.
then both the UNRWA and the Red Cross are condemned.
Funny you should mention it:
Not only are UNRWA camps operational centres for terrorists today, but too often they act as a breeding ground for future terrorists. Half of UNRWA’s budget and over two-thirds of its staff are responsible for administering the educational system. UNRWA schools educate almost 250,000 Palestinian students using textbooks introduced by the Palestinian Authority.
Are you familiar with the content of these books?
The Palestinian textbooks, which are purchased by UNRWA, contain no reference to the State of Israel and erase Israel from maps of the region.
The “shahid”, or martyr, is praised as the spearhead of the resistance to Israeli occupation. Reports have indicated that posters glorifying suicide bombers have been posted in some UNRWA schools, while teachers known to be affiliated with Hamas have won election as representatives of their local teachers’ unions.
As for the Red Cross, it has dirtied its good name. Its not longer a neutral organization.
The Magen David Adom (MDA), the Red Star of David, was born 52 years ago. It is the Red Cross, except with a Jewish symbol. Its purpose is to protect life and health and to alleviate human suffering. It serves, without discrimination, the entire Israeli population, including 1.1-million Israeli Arabs, and Palestinian Arabs in need
Yet, the Red Cross won’t let them join.
Meanwhile, Red Crescent ambulances are continually caught aiding/transporting terrorists.
Edward,
Do I believe the knee-jerk rejections of the report without any supporting evidence are valid? Only as an indication of a bias against Muslims.
Wait a second… I have displayed CAIR’s links with terror groups. What’s more you agree with me when it comes to spin, and as you stated the full report is being released Monday.
The questions I asked in my original post were When was this online form made available? Could it be credited with the increase of the reported claims? Has CAIR picked up its campaign seeking these claims? How many of these are valid?
Look. CAIR came out with a claim, but no facts to back it up, yet. The questions I’ve asked about are valid, are they not?
Accusing anyone, who is suspicious of CAIR, of bias *is* a knee jerk reaction.
Wait a second… I have displayed CAIR’s links with terror groups. What’s more you agree with me when it comes to spin, and as you stated the full report is being released Monday.
Stan, your links came long after your dismissal. I’m still reading through them, but they’re circumstantial on first glance.
I do agree that it’s spin. Of course it is.
The full report being released on Monday in no way immediately invalidates the Executive Summary, released to generate interest in the full report (typical advocacy stuff here).
Your refusal to consider that the data might be valid, to assume it’s wrong without any evidence, is the knee-jerk reaction I’m referring to. You can be suspicious of anyone you want to.
Edward,
Stan, your links came long after your dismissal
By links I didn’t mean html links. I meant what I said here CAIR has links to Hamas and one of its members trained with Al Qaeda.
Your refusal to consider that the data might be valid, to assume it’s wrong without any evidence
Again. You go to my first post (its the first one on this thread). I ask specifically Finally, anybody can file a claim (go here). When was this online form made available? Could it be credited with the increase of the reported claims? Has CAIR picked up its campaign seeking these claims? How many of these are valid?
Do you not consider those questions to be valid? Are they bigoted? If not, what exactly in that post is?
The most I am guilty of here is that of not giving CAIR the benefit of the doubt. And given their connections to terror groups, I think its justified.
I’ll also add that this is pretty ironic. Your post is based on a report that didn’t come out yet (as you freely admit) and yet claim that I am a bigot for asking questions. Who’s knee is jerkin’ here?
I pointed out that I expected your reaction Stan. That it was predicatable. No knee-jerking in that as I see it. But I’m willing to wait for the full report, if you’re willing to give the data a fair reading and seek opposing data before dismissing it because of the source.
Sure. My reaction was that of a person who opposes/distrusts those who support terrorists. I am willing to see the full report, and for the record I did not oppose anything, as you claim, I questioned it.
You still didn’t respond to my question: Do you not consider those questions (from the original post) to be valid?
My reaction was that of a person who opposes/distrusts those who support terrorists.
It’s a stretch to characterize CAIR that way.
Regarding your questions. Of course they are valid. But they were not presented in a vaccuum. They were presented after you had poisoned the well against the source.
Edward,
Here’s what preceded the questions:
Sorry, but I don’t trust CAIR. CAIR has links to Hamas and one of its members trained with Al Qaeda. They are not a mere civil rights organization.
How exactly did I poison the well?
Does CAIR have links with Hamas? Let’s see:
CAIR was founded in 1994 by two former officials of the Islamic Association for Palestine, a group that former FBI counter terrorism chief Oliver Revell acknowledged was formed as a front for the Palestinian Arab terrorist group, Hamas. One of CAIR’s official founders and its executive director, Nihad Awad, openly expressed support for Hamas, Hizbullah, and numerous other Arab/Islamic terrorist organizations.
and
CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad was the Islamic Association For Palestine’s public-relations adviser.
At a university forum in 1994, Awad declared, “I am in support of the Hamas movement.”
As for Al Qaeda:
Royer was working for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), militant Islam’s most aggressive political organization in North America, when he began training with Lashkar-e-Taiba. (He served there variously as a communications specialist and a civil rights coordinator.) This means that CAIR now has a record of at least two former employees indicted and arrested in 2003 on terrorism charges; the other was Bassem Khafagi, CAIR’s director of community relations before his arrest this January. Oh, and one must not forget that a member of CAIR’s advisory board, Siraj Wahhaj, was named as one of the “unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments nearly a decade ago. So, CAIR not only apologizes for terrorism but is now implicitly accused of having more direct links to it. (June 27, 2003)
Looks like the facts poisoned your well, not I.
Stan, look more objectively at the first link you provide and you’ll see where the bias is built in.
When I reminded him about CAIR’s record of openly supporting Hamas, Hizbullah, and other organizations deemed by the government to be terrorists, [Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman and director of communication at the Council of American-Islamic Relations] replied by telling me that “CAIR does not support these groups publicly.”
Your reporter then suggests that he meant “they do support them privately.” I wasn’t there, but I know that if someone told me that I “openly” support something, I would take that to mean they were accusing me of publically supporting it and that by saying “I do not support it publically” would simply be correcting that misperception (i.e., it’s feasibly synonymous with saying “I do not support it openly”). It’s a “So, when did you stop beating your wife?” kind of statement and as such reveals a clear bias.
This is immensely naive, Jes. Please do some research. (Yes, respectfully, you have access to Google, and don’t need to ask me to do it for you.)
What, are you claiming that Hamas did not provide aid to poverty-stricken Palestinians? Do your own research, Gary: Google is available to you as well as to me.
“What, are you claiming that Hamas did not provide aid to poverty-stricken Palestinians?”
No I think he is referring you to the fact that Hamas has always been a terrorist organization and the fact that it has never been particularly careful about keeping money donated for its ‘charity arm’ separate from its terrorist arm. He might also be refering to the fact that one of the purposes of its charity arm is to recruit suicide bombers from the families of those that it helps.
Which pretty much qualifies Hamas (as a whole) a terrorist organization.
The problem with organizations like CAIR is that they continue helping Hamas even now that it is obvious to practically everyone that the distinction between its charity and terrorist arms is a fiction.
I hear Al Qaeda was nice to some people too. Anyone want to claim it isn’t really a terrorist organization?
“What, are you claiming that Hamas did not provide aid to poverty-stricken Palestinians?”
No.
I think I’m with Jes on this phase of the argument. I’d like to see some post 9/11 sins by CAIR. Or should I point out Republican ties to Iran, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, death squads, …
I think I’m with Jes on this phase of the argument. I’d like to see some post 9/11 sins by CAIR. Or should I point out Republican ties to Iran, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, death squads, …
No need Rilkefan, noone expects you to believe anything Republicans say 😉
crionna, I’m arguing against the argument from contamination above. I’m on the left but I try to listen to what Republicans have to say when it’s said nonpartisanly – I think the “Republican ties” line is for the most part an excuse not to do that. It seems to me the CAIR-is-tainted argument above (based on what I’ve seen so far) is along those lines. Stan‘s procedural questions (after “Finally”) are good though.
In a just world, past defense of, and ties to, Hamas, Hezbollah, et al., would be blanket moral disqualifiers and grounds for public dismissal of the group in question.
In this world, of course, pointing out these facts earns people like Stan — demonstrably anything but a “bigot” — condemnation as such by, well, cretins. By whose logic I suppose I can cite the Aryan Nations for figures on African-American petty crime against caucasians.
But Lordy, no. Consistency is not the goal here. Slanderous braying is.
Anyway, CAIR is a wretched, loathesome organization, Edward. I wouldn’t trust a thing from them without third-party verification. Doesn’t the FBI keep stats on this sort of thing? Might want to quote them next time.
In a just world, past defense of, and ties to, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, the KKK, Pinochet, Iranian hostage takers – ennnh, why bother.
More CAIR news:
The most recent target of CAIR’s campaign to stifle critics of radical Islam is Boston-based radio talk show veteran Jay Severin. On April 23, CAIR issued a press release headlined: “Boston Radio Host Says Kill All Muslims; Islamic Civil Rights Group Calls for Host’s Termination.”
On April 25, the Boston Globe parroted the charges in a story that quoted CAIR spokeswoman Rabiah Ahmed accusing Severin of saying on his show, “I’ve got an idea, let’s kill all Muslims.”
Just one teensy problem with the story. It wasn’t true. On April 27, the Globe was forced to publish a correction admitting that Severin never said “kill all Muslims.” CAIR, however, has refused to admit the fabrication and continues to call for Severin’s termination.
This is what I’m talking about Stan…look a bit closer for the bias, will you???
Here’s the text of the correction:
Does that sound like CAIR was fabricating a reason to be upset to you?
How did CAIR respond after the Globe correction? Read it here:
The point of your article’s “caught ya” moment (as lame and misleading as it is) is dwarfed by the fact that Severin actually did say he believes Muslims in the US should be killed.
Regarding your source: characterizing this as the Globe being “forced” to publish a correction suggests they wouldn’t do so willingly and suggests they knew they were doing Severin some disservice. Clearly that’s not the case. I don’t think “The Right News. Right Now” is their slogan by accident, but if I were on the Right, I’d be offended by it.
Lotta CAIR bashing here. Hmm. Let me just say that if you get stopped by a coupla Florida cops, and the US gvt is going to send you down to Gitmo, it ain’t going to be the FBI, the B’nai Brith, the ADL, Stan, Tacitus, or Sp67 that is going to save your ass. It’s CAIR. They are North America’S Muslim civil rights organization, there’s no-one else of note. If you close your ears to the premier Muslim civil rights organization whent they document abuses in North America, you are a bigot.
As for Stan’s specific accusations, they are either false, misleading, or irrelevant to the issue at hand – harrassment of religious people . That is why Stan is properly recognized as a bigot. And you know that, Tacitus.
To address a couple fo tropes in Stans’ posts:
Omar M. Ahmad’s words are not a big deal (and both Tac and Stan probably know this).
Siraj Wahaj really is ‘one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America’. That’s a factual statement. I know his work, and is is often featured as a speaker at conferences.
The Boston Globe-Severin misquotation makes CAIR look good, not bad.
The remaining comments have no bearing on civil rights issues. Again, CAUR is the leading Muslim civil rights organization. Hate CAIR –> Hate Muslim civil rights.
Ikram, this is your one warning as per the Posting Rules: please consult them before posting to this site again. And no, this is not a subject for either dispute or discussion.
Moe
Moe — I’m going to need a clarification. I will certainly abide by the rules of of the site, but I’m not clear what element of the post above trangsgressed those rules. Was the offending element calling Stan a bigot?