This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at

CAIR's armies of Allah v.s. National Review Online - Has Jihad trumped journalism at NRO?

CAIR wages Wahhabbi funded Jihad as conservative & economic bastions Fox ,Dell, and NRO, cave into threats and intimidation
March 31, 2005

MIM: National Review Online, a neo conservative publication, removed two links to books about Islam after being intimidated by the Council for American Islamic Relations, (a Saudi funded front group for Hamas).
William Mayer, the publisher and editor of Pipeline News, asks National Review Online why they caved in to CAIR and shows how CAIR has launched an all out Jihad against economic and cultural symbols of America. Among the recent targets of a CAIR 'shaykhdown' were Dell computers, and Fox broadcasting. For background see:

CAIR wages Jihad against National Review Online : Calls on Muslims to "defend Islam" accuses NRO of "an attack on Prophet Muhammad"

'Sheikdown' : The Islamisation of a corporation- CAIR intimidates Dell with civil rights suit - Muslims demand prayer on company grounds"

"FOX TV coerced into providing stations with 'nice Muslim' spots made by group linked to terrorism"
MIM: In 2003 CAIR executive director Omar Ahmad declared that :
'... there are many people who are working in association with CAIR to improve relations with the American people ..., Muslims are now beginning to discover themselves ... and to define "who we are and what we stand for."

... "we are beginning to understand what is our role in this country. Muslims are not about to become millionaires or have 50 or 60 members in the U.S. Congress, but have to go back to basics and should draw a lesson from the Prophet Muhammad (OWBP) when he was forced to flee Mecca, returning some 10 years later victorious."


MIM: Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch wrote that :

"..., by removing the books, NR has tacitly acknowledged that CAIR was right: all they were was anti-Muslim hate speech. ... This is extremely important -- and disastrous -- because,..., everything with which CAIR took issue can be readily established from Islamic sources. That suggests that CAIR is trying to keep Americans from knowing unpleasant truths about Islam, which will also keep them from guarding themselves effectively from Muslims who are acting upon those unpleasant directives. It also gives CAIR a victory in their efforts to silence all criticism of Islam as "hate speech" -- and again, it looks as if Lowry obliged them because he agrees that any examination of the Islamic roots of jihad violence is out of bounds in anti-terror efforts. (see his new article below)

Yet right now, somewhere in the world, someone is explaining from the Qur'an and Sunnah why Muslims must wage jihad against unbelievers. But let's not think about that. Let's just roll over and go back to sleep..."


National Review - Which Side Are You On?

March 31, 2005 - by William A. Mayer, Editor & Publisher - PipeLineNews

CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, bills itself as an Islamic Civil Rights group, along the lines of the NAACP.

In actuality CAIR is neither a civil rights organization, nor is it like the NAACP.

CAIR is an Islamist pressure group - a captive of Wahhabist/jihadi theology.

It is an enemy of secular, republican government.

No lesser authority than Daniel Pipes characterized the organization, in an April 22, 2002 article, as "'Moderate' friends of terror."

Since January, CAIR has succeeded in cowing Fox Broadcasting, Dell Computer and Spherion Staffing, into ridiculous actions to atone for trumped up "anti-Muslim" actions.

In the case of Dell, CAIR went so far as to take advantage of a group of about 30 Somali nationals - who were resettled in Tennessee, from the hell-hole which is Africa, by the US Dept. of State - and use them to wage psychological jihad against Dell on the groundless charge that Dell was impeding their free exercise of the Islamic religion on the job.

Now CAIR has mounted the head of Rich Lowry, Senior Editor of National Review, on their trophy wall, alongside that of Fox's Gail Berman and Michael Dell.

National Review was once the most hallowed of modern conservative icons; created by William F. Buckley at a time when few remembered the towering intellect of Edmund Burke.

As such; NR stood for something, alas that is no more.

Here is the controversy.

A few weeks ago CAIR began a public relations campaign against NR. They charged the magazine with complicity in promoting two books - The Life and Religion of Mohammed & The Sword of the Prophet - that were allegedly anti-Muslim.

By anti-Muslim, CAIR really means truthful.

What CAIR did was coordinate, via its E-zine - CAIR Islam Infonet - an email and telephone bullying effort against one of National Review's key advertisers, Boeing Aircraft.

Of course this got National Review's attention, it being natural for any advertising driven organization to be concerned with the potential loss of a key source of revenue.

National Review's decision was to remove from its bookstore, the books that were claimed to be offensive, thus awarding CAIR total victory on the PR front.

Contacted on the matter, Anne F. Eisele, Boeing spokesperson, was extremely forthcoming. She spent considerable time with us on the phone in a March 30 conversation.

Ms. Eisele denied that Boeing had, at any time, threatened or in any way suggested to NR, that the books be removed from the magazine's online bookstore.

Her specific statement was:

"You asked did Boeing ask National Review to remove the books in question from its website or did the company in any way pressure National Review in its apparent decision to do so? The answer is no. I confirmed that with our head of advertising, the only company official to have contact with the National Review."

Mr. Lowry, Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Nordlinger will not speak to us on the matter. Though we have left numerous voice-mail messages for them, they have been totally unresponsive.

Yet, squirreled away in the NR online blog-section, we are greeted with the following transparency by Editor Lowry:

"So, National Review didn't sit down and say, "Hey, let's have a public fight over Mohammed and aggressively market books about him," then reverse course. In contrast, Robert Spencer and some others on the right feel very strongly that it is important to discredit Mohammed and Islam as such in order to win the war on terror. That's certainly their prerogative, but it is not the tack NR has taken, even as we have vigorously attacked Islamic terrorism."

There is a name for this, it's called caving.

Caving seems to have become somewhat of a cottage industry - among faux conservatives - over the past few weeks.

We have seen it in the actions of William Frist, the leadership of the House and in the Bush administration on a number of issues - over the so-called "nuclear" option, over Congress' unwillingness to enforce a legally constituted subpoena in the Schiavo case and on illegal immigration.

The press has it easy; they operate in the world of ideas and ink, only doing battle with words. Consequently, they are seldom if ever called upon to make their actions consistent with what they say.

In this matter they have been tested and found wanting, demonstrating a considerable chasm between pontification and action.

As Bill Bennett once glibly remarked, "Hypocrisy is better than having no standards at all."

But at this point shouldn't we all hold ourselves to a little higher bar, one that might possibly include conduct?

As with all matters pertaining to how we deal with fraudulent organizations like CAIR, there is a more important point.

Every capitulation strengthens them.

CAIR thrives on these public relations victories, it fuels their cultural jihad.

My writing partner Beila Rabinowitz calls these actions Shaykh-downs, and that is precisely what they are.

These little media excursions are the actions of religiously bigoted thugs.

When we acquiesce to their strident demands we legitimize and embolden them - both in the eyes of their followers as well as with the public in general. This empowers them to go before school boards and convince them to allow CAIR to institute multicultural religious indoctrination sessions in classrooms, which might go so far as to include "extra-credit" fasting on the part of Christian students in observance of the Islamic feast of Ramadan.

Is that what we want?

It's certainly anathema to most conservatives, unfortunately, it is apparently less so, to the folks at National Review.

©1999-2005 PipeLineNews, all rights reserved.


MIM: Robert Spencer the editor of 'Jihad Watch' and 'Dhimmi Watch' explains the strategy behind CAIR's campaign of intimidation to have the book entitled: " The Life and Religion of Mohamed" withdrawn from sale by the National Review Online.


By Robert Spencer

The Council on American Islamic Relations demanded an apology from National Review and the removal of a book, The Life and Religion of Mohammed, from sale by NR's Book Service. This was wrongly focused: NR didn't publish the book and wasn't the sole source for it. (The book is available at the HUMAN EVENTS Book Service. Click here.) But it was revealing of what CAIR wants Americans to know -- and not know -- about Islam.

CAIR took issue with an advertising description of the book that touted it as explaining "why Mohammed couldn't possibly be a true prophet." CAIR was angered by the ad's assertions that "Mohammed posed as the apostle of God . . . while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful butcheries, all the time invoking God's holy name to sanction his evil deeds."

CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper demanded that NR "clarify its position on Islamophobic hate speech and offer a public apology for promoting a book that so viciously attacks the faith of one-fifth of the world's population."

In fact, it's true that "Mohammed posed as the apostle of God...while his life is marked by innumerable marriages; and great licentiousness, deeds of rapine, warfare, conquests, unmerciful butcheries, all the time invoking God's holy name to sanction his evil deeds." Aside from the judgment that all this is "evil," what is CAIR actually denying? That Muhammad was married more than once? That's universally acknowledged by Muslims. So are the other points:

CAIR may differ with Fr. Menezes's assessment of this, but it can't very well deny its existence. Muslim apologists try to justify Muhammad's marriages, battles, and killings in various ways, but it would be the height of chutzpah to deny they took place at all. Would CAIR, in contrast, paint for us a picture of Muhammad the Rotarian?

Hooper said that "anti-Muslim rhetoric often leads to discrimination and even violence."

But Fr. Menezes calls for no violence. Everything he says about Muhammad is, as I have shown, easily established from Islamic sources. What this charge does is attempt to divert attention from the real violence committed by jihadists today to a chimera of violence against Muslims in America, thereby silencing criticism of Islam and investigations of the sources of Islamic terror in the Koran and Sunnah.

If non-Muslims can't look into Islamic sources to investigate the causes of jihad violence, it plays into jihadist hands: the less Americans know about how they recruit and motivate terrorists, the less we can do about it.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to which CAIR compares this book, is fictional. But the Islamic sources I have cited are not fiction. Now that CAIR has intimidated NR into removing The Life and Religion of Mohammed from its book service, it is a victory for those who don't want Americans to know uncomfortable details about Muhammad. Unfortunately, however, jihad terrorists know these elements of the life of Muhammad quite well, and are imitating them. Ignorance of them on the part of Americans will only make us more vulnerable.

This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at