CAIR: Respected or Feared?

Less than one week after 9/11, when President Bush went to a Washington, D.C. mosque and told Americans that Islam is a religion of peace, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was there. In fact, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad stood right behind President Bush.

The President said, “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”

CAIR is the most powerful Muslim advocacy group in America. It has compared itself to the NAACP and the ACLU. CAIR even boasts that it has "achieved a status of enviable prestige within the highest echelons of the 'Washington establishment.'" Its Web site states that CAIR is working "to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslim America."

In fact, a CAIR public service announcement says, "We often hear claims Muslims don't condemn terrorism and that Islam condones violence…but…it's about peace and justice."

But CAIR's critics have another view.

Robert Spencer is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.

Spencer said, "The Council on American Islamic Relations is probably the chief obstacle to effective action against Islamic terrorism in the United States. You have a group here that is portrayed by the mainstream media as a neutral civil rights organization; is received by the government as such; has given sensitivity training seminars on how to deal with Muslims to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and to local police forces…and yet this group not only has had several of its officials arrested on various terrorism related activities, but also has a series of highly questionable and highly disturbing statements by its leading officials."

One imprisoned ex-official is Randall Royer, CAIR's former communications specialist and civil rights coordinator. He pled guilty to weapons and explosives charges after being accused of levying war against the United States for conspiracy to provide material support to al-Qaeda.

CAIR's response is that Royer was indicted after he had already left CAIR.

CAIR's Director of Community Relations, Bassem Khafagi , was arrested on terror-finance charges, pled guilty to visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported.

CAIR's Board Chairman, Omar Ahmad is quoted in a 1998 news article saying that "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."

Siraj Wahhaj, a CAIR advisory board member, has called for replacing the U.S. government with Islamic rule. And he was a character witness on behalf of the first World Trade Center bomber, sheik Abdel Rahman, who he called a "martyr.”

“It's clear that quite a number of associates, employees of CAIR have been connected to terrorism in one fashion or another,” said Dr. Daniel Pipes. “It's also clear that CAIR is connected to a terrorist organization, Hamas. Hamas founded the Islamic Association of Palestine, and graduates, let's say, of this IAP then founded CAIR.”

Board Chairman Ahmad and Executive Director Awad both served with the IAP. Awad once admitted being a supporter of "the Hamas movement."

You might think that with this kind of potential public relations baggage, CAIR would be running for cover. But you would be wrong because CAIR is not just the most respected Muslim advocacy group in the United States, it's also the most feared. Attack CAIR and you could get sued or threatened with a lawsuit or a boycott, as a number of media entities and companies have discovered.

Spencer said, "Now, everyone's afraid of them. They've gotten quite few heads to put on their belt, you know -- Fox, National Review, WMAL, ABC, and so on. "

And when it threatened Nike with a boycott over a shoe design that looked like the Arabic word for Allah, Nike recalled 38,000 pairs of shoes.

"This is something that only emboldens them,” Spencer said. “Because they know they can do it. They know people will not resist them and not tell the truth about what they're doing."

CBN News was given a copy of one of CAIR's threatening letters to a college newspaper, The Cornell Sun.

It warned, "Any further publication of defamatory stories about CAIR; (and) suit will be filed forthwith." And then it added: "If you elect to publish or distribute this confidential letter to any person or entity in any form; suit will be filed forthwith."

Was that because CAIR did not want the public to know it was threatening to sue college students?

But when CAIR threw a lawsuit at Andrew Whitehead, its legal strategy suddenly backfired. Whitehead said, “I've never for a minute thought that I would lose a case like this."

CAIR filed suit in 2004 against Whitehead, a Navy veteran who runs a Web site called anti-CAIR. CAIR's suit claimed allegations made on Whitehead's Web site were false and defamatory.

What follows are those allegations in shortened form:

--CAIR is a “terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists…”

--CAIR is an "organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy…”

--And, CAIR has “proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists…and actively supports terrorists…”

CAIR sought damages of over $1 million, but when attorney Reed Rubinstein from a high powered Washington law firm took Whitehead's case, he launched an in-depth discovery process, demanding CAIR answer questions about its connections to Hamas and about funding sources in Saudi Arabia. CAIR objected to most of the questions and then suddenly shortened its complaint against Whitehead to just the statements:

--CAIR is a “terrorist supporting front organization."
--CAIR "seeks to overthrow constitutional government in the United States."

Was it a de facto admission by CAIR that the other statements could be proven in court about connections to Hamas, about being founded by Islamic terrorists, about funding terrorism, and working for an Islamist theocracy?

CAIR's attorney wouldn't talk to us. But Rubinstein said yes.

“They decided these statements were no longer either false or defamatory. In other words, the first conclusion you would draw is that the statements are in fact true,” he said.

Then last month, CAIR decided to settle out of court, and the suit was dismissed with prejudice, meaning CAIR cannot sue Whitehead again over the claims. The claims remain on the anti-CAIR Web site. No apology was issued, and Whitehead remains convinced that CAIR is a grave threat.

“If CAIR has its way, tomorrow, in my opinion, they would have the United States turned into a Muslim theocracy with a green flag flying over the White House, our constitution would not exist, our system of justice would not exist,” Whitehead said.

Spencer said, “And for it to be given a pass as a neutral civil rights organization is especially unfortunate in light of the intimidation that it routinely employs against those who speak the truth about Islam.”

CBN News could not get CAIR to respond to our requests for its side of the story.
In 2004, CAIR did not allow CBN News reporter Melissa Charbonneau access to a CAIR press conference in Washington.

"CBN does not have credibility of being objective reporting. They just attack people, worse than Fox," Nihad Awad said.

CAIR has warned that "people who make statements connecting CAIR to terrorism should understand the legal consequences of their attempted slander and defamation."

But after its failure in the Whitehead case, some are wondering if CAIR's days of using lawsuits against its critics are finally over.