CAIR RESPONDS TO DANIEL PIPES' ANTI-MUSLIM HYSTERIA

By: Ibrahim Hooper *

In his hysterical and dishonest response to challenges I made to his credibility as a scholar, ("Look Closer at Group Behind the Accusations," 8/24/99) Daniel Pipes once again proves he cannot be trusted to offer accurate information or even to refrain from distortions and fabrications.

He is instead clearly a man with intense passions, but few facts about Muslims in America.

First, Pipes continues to promote a spurious distinction between "patriotic" Muslims and "chauvinists" who "want to impose Islamic law and other Middle Eastern ways on this country."

Of course Pipes fails to mention even one instance in which CAIR called for the imposition of Islamic law in America. I am also not sure what he means by "Middle Eastern ways," but knowing Pipes, it cannot be good.

In his writings to date, Pipes has never offered objective criteria that would distinguish between "patriots" and "chauvinists." His definition of "chauvinist" must be fairly broad. In a recent article in Canada's National Post, Pipes wrote: "The Internet boasts hundreds of Islamist [chauvinist] sites; I doubt whether there is a single one that is traditional [patriotic] Muslim." (8/7/99) This is the same article in which Pipes  compared "Islamism" (never clearly defined) to Marxism, Fascism and Leninism.

The real criterion seems to be whether or not a given Muslim agrees with  Pipes' "us versus them" worldview. In Pipes' view, the perpetual "them" is Islam. Oh, I am sorry, "Islamism."

Second, Pipes makes a number of demonstrably false accusations against CAIR.

He claims we have apologized for "killers such as .......and ...Bin Laden." This accusation will have those who followed CAIR's progress scratching their heads. For try as one might, no references to Hamas or Osama bin Laden, other than in refutations of this type, will be found in any document published by CAIR. I challenge Pipes to produce such a document. Perhaps he merely "forgot" to mention that CAIR regularly issues statements condemning terrorism in any form. (Our latest statement condemned the attack on the Jewish community center near Los Angeles.)

Pipes says CAIR helps "promote terrorism." But surprise, surprise, he offers no objective support for this accusation. He merely quotes paid "security" consultant Steven Pomerantz who, according to Florida editor John Sugg, is one of a group of pundits who "spend their time (and make money) out of portraying Arabs and Muslims as terrorists." (Weekly Planet)

All these accusations are merely a rehash of material used by Steven Emerson, an infamous Muslim-basher whose work has been widely condemned as biased and inaccurate. Emerson was the "journalist" who fueled anti-Islamic hysteria by blaming Muslims for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. (Pipes now admits that he too made the "mistake" of pointing a finger at Muslims.)

He also said Muslims were responsible for the downing of TWA Flight 800 in 1996.

Emerson's organization, the Investigative Project, is a spin-off of Pipes  Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum (MEF). In an investigative report by iViews.com, Emerson confirmed that MEF funded his activities in the past and said: "Clearly I had a very close relationship with them (MEF) and I continue to have a very close relationship."

Pipes seems to be jumping feet first into the same tar pit of deceit that snared Emerson.

Another challenge: Provide concrete information indicating that CAIR in any shape or form promotes terrorism.

He claims we intimidate "patriotic Muslims who disagree with CAIR's chauvinist agenda," and then dishonestly implies that the FBI is looking into CAIR death threats against one person.

If the FBI thinks these alleged threats came from CAIR, they have not called our office to inquire. That too is surprising since CAIR representatives regularly meet with FBI officials at the highest levels to discuss issues related to discrimination and its impact on the American Muslim community.

Pipes claims CAIR has a "potential unindicted coconspirator in the World Trade Center bombing" on our board. (When you think about it, every human being on earth is a "potential" unindicted coconspirator.) In this case, Pipes is referring to Imam Siraj Wahhaj, one of the most respected Muslim leaders in America.

Imam Siraj is known for his work cleaning up drug-infested neighborhoods in  New York. He is also the first Muslim to offer a prayer opening a session of Congress. And, he is not on our board of directors. He is a member of our advisory board.

In his most bizarre accusation, Pipes claims that CAIR defends "even the  most archaic and barbaric of customs associated with Islam." (This from a  man who claims to have nothing but warm and fuzzy feelings about Islam.) He cites the case of two Cleveland Muslims accused in the murder of a relative. Pipes tries to show that CAIR's intervention in this case was a defense of so-called "honor killing."

The controversy arose when a local prosecutor said the accused men "believe  that their religious beliefs supersede our law." This drew the following quote from CAIR-Ohio: "Anyone guilty of murder should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but that prosecution must not be based on religious  or ethnic stereotyping and bias."

The Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote of the case: "Leaders of local Arab and Muslim groups have denounced the claim as a cultural slur rooted in an outdated custom." (6/24/99) In other words, CAIR wished to distance Islam from this offensive practice, not defend it.

Let me state it plainly. CAIR did not, and will not, defend the un-Islamic practice of "honor killing." We will however defend Islam from smears by the likes of Pipes.

It is interesting that such a "scholar" would turn this issue on its ear to defame a group trying to separate culture from legitimate religious beliefs. (Anyone wishing to see what CAIR actually does may visit our web site at www.cair-net.org.)

A third challenge to Pipes: Since CAIR does not defend "honor killing," what are the other "archaic and barbaric" customs we do defend?

Finally, how does one reply to the implicit racism of Pipes' concluding remarks that "a new danger exists in their [America's] midst?" This from the same person who wrote on a radical pro-Israel web site: "...as the population of Muslims in the United States grows, so does antisemitism." ("The New Anti-Semitism," http://freeman.io.com/m_online/jan98/pipes.htm)

Note Pipes did not say, "as the population of chauvinist Muslims...grow." Perhaps a more accurate title for the article would have been "The New McCarthyism."

And what would Pipes recommend be done with all those "chauvinist" American  Muslims? Why do I get images of barbed wire and guard dogs?

Pipes' obvious agenda is to drive a wedge between the American Muslim community and the rest of the society. To accomplish this, his only weapons are ignorance and prejudice. Fortunately, the American public has greater intelligence than Pipes would hope. The more he writes on this subject, the more he is exposed.

* Ibrahim Hooper is national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington-based Islamic advocacy group.

Council on American-Islamic Relations 1050 17th Street N.W., Suite 490 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 659-CAIR (2247) Fax: (202) 659-2254 E-mail: cair1@ix.netcom.com http://www.cair-net.org

Posted: August 25, 2000