CAIR Documenting Islamophobia on the rise in the USA – Calling CAIR to Account for its Omissions By Zahir Ebrahim

By Zahir Ebrahim | Project
Monday, July 04, 2011 | Last updated July 07, 2011 6:00 PM | See Press Release 7 July 2011
The following letter was sent to CAIR, The Council on American-Islamic Relations, forwarding them my comment to the article “Islamophobia on the rise in USA” which highlighted their report, with a short preamble prefacing that comment.
First, some context for non-Muslim readers who might be unfamiliar with matters peculiar to Muslims which Muslims implicitly understand, and which often forms the unarticulated sub-text of our communications amongst each other:
- AOA is the internet vernacular for the greeting 'Assalaam O Alekum'. It loosely means 'may peace be with you'.
- “jihad-un-nafs” is the Qur'anic concept of inner courage and strength one must acquire in oneself ( يُجَاهِدُ لِنَفْسِهِ ۚ Holy Qur'an Surah Al-Ankaboot, 29:6) in order to strive for truth and justice in practice before one will in fact ever be able to practice truth and justice ( وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالْحَقِّ Holy Qur'an Surah Al-Asr 103:3) in one's conduct with fellow man. It is often referred out of context as simply the “inner struggle” for the control of the “self”. That out-of-context meaning typically relegates it to a meaningless spiritual battle of no consequence to alleviating the suffering of fellow man from all causes, including tyranny. It is among the many hijackings of the religion Islam by its venerable imperial scholars, experts, narrators, and mullahs who have served empire throughout history unto the present day, and the ignorant peoples of all stripes who bow before these “experts” without using their own commonsense, to turn Islam, the religion of implementing justice for oneself as much as for fellow man, into merely one of a gibberish religion of rituals and soulful Arabic recitations.
- As Muslims, we love wearing our religion upon our forehead. We are also perhaps the most ritualistic pious people on earth. Our mosques are full of heaven seekers. But when it comes to implementing the core meaningful constructs of the religion which transcend the rituals of piety, we are the proverbial empty drum – make a lot of noise. We love to carry the banner of "Islam" in our names, titles, institutions, national constitutions, etc. The non-Muslim not entirely taken in by our show of pious rituals would surely have noticed that more we use the word "Islamic" in our designations and affiliations, more we appear to please false gods while making all our pretenses to the One True God we proclaim to worship.
- Between being useful idiots and pleasing false gods, the choice is often straightforward for us Muslims. Do both. No outsider can tell the difference anyway. It has many advantages – for when caught, we can proclaim we were fooled, that we didn't know. Works great – on the one hand it serves the interests of the false gods du jour, on the other it protects us from retribution if ever the false gods change and new ones become our masters.
- Unlike Christians and Christianity, we have two completely separate words to designate the people who proclaim to follow the religion or are born into that culture (Muslims) vs. the divine religion (Islam). Any time you see one terminology aliasing for another, you might do well to remember that there is some axe to grind somewhere. Bernard Lewis is the venerable master of this obfuscation now being amiably carried by CAIR, when he began his treatise “Crisis of Islam – Holy War and Unholy Terror” with the following gem:
It is difficult to generalize about Islam. To begin with, the word itself is commonly used with two related but distinct meanings, as the equivalents both of Christianity, and Christendom. In the one sense, it denotes a religion, as system of beliefs and worship; in the other, the civilization that grew up and flourished under the aegis of that religion. The word Islam thus denotes more than fourteen centuries of history, a billion and a third people, and a religious and cultural tradition of enormous diversity.” (Bernard Lewis, Crisis of Islam, pg. 1).
That last sentence is the diabolical deception with which imperial craftsmanship subverts our religion: “The word Islam thus denotes more than fourteen centuries of history, a billion and a third people, and a religious and cultural tradition of enormous diversity.”
According to the Author of the Holy Qur'an upon which the religion of Islam is based, the word Islam denotes only, and only, the following: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion;” ( الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ۚ Holy Qur'an, Surah Al-Maida 5:3)
That is the only, repeat only, context in which the word “Islam” can be legitimately used. It is the only context in which Qur'an has used it – as indicating a divine religion, quite separate from its followers, and the affairs of its followers. That separation of terminology is itself espoused in the Holy Qur'an by virtue of having a separate terminology. It is in fact a distinction of Islam in comparison to all the other Abrahamic religions which do not feature such a clear separation. This is why followers of Prophet Muhammad for instance are not called Mohammedans, nor believers of Islam Islamic, except by the prejudicial orientalists. The word designated in the Holy Qur'an for them is Muslims.
All who misuse the Qur'anic terminology, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, are either ignorant peoples, or, the respected apprentices of Machiavelli. In the latter case, they deliberately try to subvert the religion of Islam by associating it with the inglorious deeds, and the kingly history of Muslims. One can immediately see the result of such gratuitous binding – read the afore-cited book of Bernard Lewis if one is a naïve baby only born yesterday and magically became a scholar overnight.
Based solely on that premeditated collateral damage to language – drawing false associations by overloading semantics in an already well-defined nomenclature, also the principal basis of subliminally as well as cognitively binding something virtuous with something abhorrent such that when the virtuous is mentioned, the abhorrent naturally springs to mind – that Samuel Huntington, the late circus clown of empire at Harvard, diabolically made the following statement in his treatise “The Clash of Civilizations”:
The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the US Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These are the basic ingredient that fuel conflict between Islam and the West.” (Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1996, pg. 217)
Since when did the word "Islam" indicate civilization? A civilization is an aggregate of peoples. Whereas Islam is a religion. A religion can be practiced in any civilization and by any peoples, including right here in the USA. Samuel Huntington's teacher was evidently Bernard Lewis, and they incestuously fed off each other in seeding Islamophobia in service to their own cause.
Such premeditated collateral damage to language, and fanning the flames of Islamophobia years in advance, enabled forging the US foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11 against the cleverly devised Hegelian construct of “militant Islam”, to mask what Zbigniew Brzezinski termed “imperial mobilization” in his own treatise, “The Grand Chessboard”, pg. 36.
The roots of Islamophobia are very deep and very distinguished indeed. As noted in the letter to CAIR below, it is the twain of Islamofascism and militant Islam – the pretext for the 'War on Terror'. One cannot be examined in isolation from the other any more than the leaves of a tree can be examined in isolation from its DNA, or cause from its effect. 'Tis rather obvious!
- We Muslims understand this sub-text of the War on Terror – even when we refuse to say it out loud in public. One can hear it in hushed living-room conversations throughout the Muslim world. We might act cowardly in public – but we aren't so stupid when we stare in the mirror.
- While one expects empire and its instruments to indulge in such diabolically specious story-telling, and they do – from academe to politicians to newsmedia – one does not expect the self-proclaimed representatives of its victims to do the same. But this anomalous behavior resoundingly echoes in every instance of Muslims' representation today, from mosques to secular non-profit institutions like CAIR. The one thing which perhaps sheds some penetrating light on this vile zeitgeist is the following insight of Martin Luther King Jr. into a colonized mind:
The white establishment is skilled in flattering and cultivating emerging leaders. It presses its own image on them and finally, from imitation of manners, dress, and style of living, a deeper strain of corruption develops. This kind of Negro leader acquires the white man’s contempt for the ordinary Negro. He is often more at home with the middle-class white than he is among his own people. His language changes, his location changes, his income changes, and ultimately he changes from the representative of the Negro to the white man into the white man’s representative to the Negro. The tragedy is that too often he does not recognize what has happened to him.”, -- (Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope, pg. 307)
Two references are useful study in this regard for scholars and laity alike: the FAQ on 'House Negro', and The Autobiography of Malcolm X which timelessly captures the 'nigger' who lives to be 'white'. There is hardly a Muslim who will not understand these matters, our earnestness at playing the fool notwithstanding. We know, deep within our heart, who is carrying the White Man's Burden. The worst 'niggers' among us are our learned academics. They usually find a welcoming home in America's vast academic complex, especially as dissent-chiefs. It must soothe the conscience to be innocent of knowledge of WWF wrestling, when one indulges in it.
That is the primary reason why Professor Hatem Bazian is cc'ed on my letter to CAIR. As a well-known Muslim scholar of SF-BAY Area who graces many a Friday sermon in Bay Area mosques, an outspoken Palestinian critic of Israel, someone whom I know (but who may not know me as I am only a plebeian once found sitting quietly in the audience but no longer bother), and one who is acknowledged prominently in the CAIR report by CAIR's Executive Director on page-5 “I would like to extend my thanks to the following people who contributed to the production of this report: Khadija Athman and Dr. Hatem Bazian”, the good professor must publicly account for its short-comings alongside CAIR and their other technical advisors.
Page-2 of the CAIR report squarely lays the blame for the grotesque omissions I charge them with, only upon CAIR and their technical advisors:
This report is co-sponsored by the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The Center for Race and Gender is responsible for the special sections on Park 51 and the 2010 election. CAIR is responsible for all other material in the report. This report was finalized on Dec. 1, 2010. All information is accurate to the best of our knowledge through that date.”
- And lastly, we see below an example of that axe of “useful idiot” being grinded by CAIR while keeping the core-axioms for the worship of their false gods intact and untouchable. CAIR might do well to replace “Islamic” with “Muslim” in their title to become The Council on American-Muslim Relations which is certainly more appropriate for an organization dealing with Muslim affairs in America rather than dealing with the religion of Islam. Then, at least ordinary ill-informed plebeians like me won't get confused by their omissions and half-narratives which are the staple of any polished propaganda system of the Mighty Wurlitzer.
I look forward to hearing what excuse CAIR will bring forth to explain their omissions – “didn't know” (useful idiot) or “conspiracy theory” (using the narrative of their own false gods).
With all the preceding sub-text of implicitly understood matters among Muslims behind us, reproduced below is my letter to CAIR objecting to their report. Preamble is in [] brackets.
To: CAIR ,
Subject: CAIR Documenting Islamophobia on the rise in the USA – Calling CAIR to Account for its Omissions By Zahir Ebrahim
Cc: Professor Hatem Bazian ,
Cc: Prof. Evelyn Nakano Glenn Director Center for Race & Gender
Date: Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM PST
[ AOA, The glossy 68-page CAIR report is how many of us are co-opted into muttering half-truths in the name of conscience, activism, dissent, representation, etc., when we do find the courage to give up our stoned silence. I am not sure which is better, half-truth documenting crimes against humanity (a Jewish proverb says: “a half truth is a full lie”), or, pathetic silence of the spectators in the face of crimes against humanity (which all books of wisdom and retrospective law (such as Nuremberg) say is criminal)? What I have learnt personally in this respect are two things. 1) That half-truths are part of Machiavellian political science. It always serves someone's purpose. And sometimes, rather often times, quite unbeknownst to its narrators/actors. That's called a "useful idiot" serving someone else's interests but with the best noble motivations of one's own. Read the Mighty Wurlitzer Report. And 2) That silence is either a calculated part of wise cowardice, or, a lack of an abundance of foolish courage. Take your pick. It follows that speaking the bold truth in completeness without any omissions, must be the act of “jihad-un-nafs” – no? Thank you, Zahir Ebrahim, Project ]
Thank you for the link to CAIR document (Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and Its Impact in the United States January 2009-December 2010)*. It will certainly come in handy one day if Muslims ever become like our Jewish brethren – the eternal victims. The Jews have perfected the art of seeking endless claims, as noted in the Press Release ( Did You or Your Family Take Palestinian Property during the Jewish Zionist Era Since 1948? June 27, 2011 ). But we shall surely “better that instruction” (Shakespeare in Merchant of Venice)**. Just kidding....
But this PDF document of CAIR serves little purpose other than being a Mighty Wurlitzer piece as a limited hangout. What else is the point of this documentation may I ask?
Does its colored and glossy 68 pages lend any insight whatsoever into the motivation, the WHY Islamophobia is on the rise in USA – what was the purpose to craftily seed it to begin with? It didn't materialize overnight you know.
Here is a passage from the late Harvard professor Samuel Huntington's 1996 book, quoting professor emeritus of Princeton University, Bernard Lewis from his 1990 article in the Council on Foreign Relations' rag, Foreign Affairs, crafting “Muslim Rage” to define the framework for 9/11 and the War on Terror a full decade before it:
In 1990 Bernard Lewis, a leading Western scholar of Islam, analyzed 'The Roots of Muslim Rage,' and concluded: 'It should now be clear that we are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations - that perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both. It is crucially important that we on our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but also equally irrational reaction against our rival.'” (Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1996, pg. 213)
Sadly, such motivations are neither disclosed nor deconstructed by the high-falutin glossy 68 page brochure of CAIR and their hoity-toity academics acknowledged on pages 8-9 of that document. Perhaps I just scanned it too fast – perhaps CAIR has addressed it elsewhere and wanted to keep this brochure for the claimants' courts of the future....
If interested, and tired of reading empire's useful idiots who, in order to ensure that imperial crumbs continue to fall on their academic plates, continually shy away from any bold and accurate articulation of truth (not that they don't know it – most Muslims such as these learned souls surely must, but all are silenced by the expectation of rewards, continued employment, or loss of benefits if they speak up) by telling half-stories and partial truths, read it here: 'War on Terror' is not about 'Islamofascism' – Please get with the real agenda you people!
That explains why Islamophobia was seeded in the USA and EU, starting with Bernard Lewis' fiction of “Muslim Rage”.
We only see its backlash flourishing by the natural process of weed multiplication in any fertile green lawn. The natural social dynamics of engineering consent are far better understood by the hectoring hegemons than the common man can comprehend. Such processes, occasionally “tickled” by the odd Qur'an burning parties here and there which appear to be officially protected (by virtue of nothing ever happens to the Qur'an burners), keep the notion of Islamophobia alive for good measure. And useful idiots like CAIR document them for our benefit, without lending any insight into the matter. Wonderful....
But the primary purpose has already been served by seeding the mantra of “Islamofascism” and “Muslim Rage”. (We already harvested the perpetual War on Terror, the Fortress America, the definition of the “domestic terrorist” to make a successful police-state in Fortress America, and most bountiful of all harvests, the never-ending pretexts for “imperial mobilization” of Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski to achieve the “global governance” of the bankster oligarchy.)
Thus, it is now fine for all the list of accolades for the "BEST" on page 13 onwards in the glossy CAIR brochure to stand up to Islamophobia. Hegelian Dialectic requires both sides of the fabricated coin to be present. Both sides are fabricated, and patently false. (How does one tell it is a Hegelian Dialectic? By observing that both sides, the Islamophobes and those opposing it, keep the core-lies of empire very much intact. And they each do it by omission!)
In so far as it goes, CAIR is still the only Muslim organization that does whatever little it does. I am not sure if I should be thankful for its generosity of purpose, which it is, or pull my remaining hair out for its useful idiot's role in America, which it also is.
Zahir Ebrahim | Project
Comment submitted for: “Islamophobia on the rise in USA

** Shakespeare's passage in context: “If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”

The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley ( ), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by numerous publishers and can be read on the web at He may be reached at Verbatim reproduction license at

07/07/2011 18:00:05 3431
Link fix November 11, 2016

CAIR Documenting Islamophobia on the rise in the USA – Calling CAIR to Account for its Omissions 9/9