How CAIR wins through Definition Confusion
Reader comment on item: How the West Could Lose
Submitted by Terry (United States), Jan 22, 2007 at 08:37
There is a confusion that the media is participating in which contributes to what's going on. For example, see Bill O'Reilly's latest interview with CAIR about "24". The legal rep from CAIR keeps calling "Muslims" (a religious group) a "minority" and comparing them to African Americans (a race), and Japanese (a nationality). This is incorrect and plays into the way that CAIR slips around between the separation between church and state, and civil rights to gain special rights.
The news refused to discuss Muslims as religion when reporting the war, it was a "government/nationality."
Ah...So then why are we allowing mosques to be built all over the West? Because then it is called a religion.
So ...Then why do we allow Islamic Departments of Study at every major university and infiltration of our university programs by pro-Islamism professors. Can you imagine Department of Judaism or Christianity or for that matter, at every major university? Or how about Department of Communist studies (if it's a politico-national entity). Then there is the ACLU which treats Muslims as a race.
So what is it--race, religion, politicl-national entity, government, nationality? If we continue to allow them to define themselves as all four, they will continue to slip between our laws to their advantage.
In their minds they ARE all four, they are supreme, above the law, above criticism, hiding behind every one of Democracy's civil rights laws, and separation of church and state, and our legal system.
I propose that it is not a race, because you can change whether you are Muslim or not (if you're willing to be murdered for it.) So we must stop allowing them to compare themselves to African-Americans (which, while implying a nationality, is really a reference to race). If they want to call themselves a race, they must say Arabs or Southeast Asians. And we have to stop buying into this nonsense and even slipping into it ourselves.
It is not a nationality because there are Muslims around the world. (It's debatable whether appropriate to call it a minority at all) So we should stop allowing Muslims to compare themselves to Japanese. If they want to call themselves a nationality, they must say Iranian, or Saudi Arabian, or Egyptian, or Pakastani.
What does this confusion of definitions mean to us? Muslims won't let us talk against Islamists, but they spew anti-Christian words (religion), anti-American (nationality) anti-Democracy. They hide behind whatever definition suits them best for the situation. They have created a group identity as a proud nationality/religion/government/race above everyone else. This gives them enormous power to avoid our laws - and confuse us in discussion.
We are not used to defending oursleves as Americans (a nationality) or as Christians (a religion), or as Caucasians (a race), or as members of a Democracy. We've always, in the past, been the Majority, and so it is a skill that we haven't developed and we're totally confused by these greased and slippery definitions. That is why pundits are so often left speechless in the war of words and end up saying things like "Well, I see your point." The Islamists and the CAIR are masters at debate and the tricky use of words, and not just because of taqiyya and kitman.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (2097) on this item
Comment on this item
You can help support Daniel Pipes' work by making a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes