A look at the “fine print” in CAIR’s report

“If the community doesn’t believe that radicalization or extremism or extremist views or extremist Islamic ideology is a problem in their own community, then you should also understand that maybe they know what they’re talking about, and not be spending police resources this way.” – Faiza Patel

CAIR’s sources give a glimpse on to the infrastructure that has been established for supporting hate crime reports, such as CAIR’s .
CAIR sources Faiza Patel who writes for the Brennan Center, a good friend of CAIR.
CAIR quotes her as saying-

“In February, the FBI launched the online game “Don’t Be a Puppet: Pull Back the Curtain on Violent Extremism” as part of its Countering Violent Extremism program. The platform aims to recruit the assistance of educators and students in order to identify youth who are at risk of becoming violent extremists, and to report them to the FBI. In doing so, it falsely implies that there is an identifiable path to becoming a violent extremist, despite the fact that repeated studies have thoroughly disproven this notion.”

The “through disproving of this notion” is to be found in Faiza Patel’s “Rethinking Radicalizationhttps://www.brennancenter.org/…/RethinkingRadicalization.pdf
In her report, Faiza Patel gives special emphasis to an MI5 report which actually is not available. She is telling us what was reported about the MI5 report in the Guardian newspaper. https://www.theguardian.com/…/…/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1
This is quite a bit different from the prestige Faiza Patel gives to it. We don’t know anything about this report: who wrote it, how it was put together, what cases were involved, etc. Only the conclusion is clear; they can’t spot a jihadi from the crowd. Ms Patel cites a number of other reports that reach the same conclusion; they haven’t got a clue, either.

It is a problem, spotting the bad Muslims among the good. And, when one is faced with an impasse, a change in approach is necessary. In this case, a factoring in of the ideology that inspires jihad would seem to be a natural choice. However, this is exactly what people, and groups like Faiza Patel, and CAIR are trying to prevent. She states it plainly, here.

“Our government’s role must be focused on the act, not the ideology.”

The dilemma that Faiza Patel posits is somehow a choice between the First Amendment, and fighting jihad. A more fruitful dichotomy, is that of the religious, and political sides of Islam.

While Muslims choose not to make the distinction between church, and state, we can.
Islam is a religion, but primarily it is a political ideology, and it is this part of the Islamic ideology we must start discussing in order to think clearly. This will lead us to an awareness of the Muslim Brotherhood. This, in turn, will lead to an awareness that the very people advising us in the war on terror, are working for the other side. Having a well understood opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood will help to prevent ridiculous conversations like this between Rep. Dan Lundgren and Paul Stockton- Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU6n1mrpAGY

All too often, the current “blinders on” approach has been used as a cover for the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Ms Patel is still another example this.
Patel has called the “Third Jihad” a “virulently anti-Muslim” film. But, the “Third Jihad” was about the Muslim Brotherhood, in particular, CAIR. This is the ideology that she is protecting, and giving cover to when she praises CAIR calling them a “mainstream” organization. http://thehill.com/…/poli…/166371-rethinking-radicalization-
In turn, CAIR has awarded the Brennen Center its ‘Safe While Free’ Award, and the Brennen Center is currently helping CAIR fight President Trump’s common sense travel restrictions.
CAIR’s report is a political statement accusing Americans of attacking Muslims in record numbers when just the opposite is true.

Leave a Reply