Talk:Council on American–Islamic Relations

As than america citzen I donot recogize Danial Pipe and Robert Spencer as being america citizen.

The america federal coutt arenot doing they job to protect america muslim citizen civil right and human right from the islamistprobic like Danial Pipe and Robert Spence of jihadwatch of being hater.Since our legal system does nothing I donot recogize Danial Pipe or Robert Spencer as being america citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.188.147 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

With a remedial grammar equivalent to that of a kindergarden schoolchild, I doubt it very much that you are in fact an American citizen. Anyhow, who gives the rat's ass whether you think Pipes and Spencer are American citizens or not. Who are you anyway? Who elected you? How are you anymore of an American citizen than the two "Islamistprobics"?

And hey let's say you are right. Pipes and Spencer aren't American citizens because you are an American citizen and they aren't. Well Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are also american citizens, so would you support them not recognizing the founders of CAIR as American citizens? Fellytone (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Other "Muslim Mafia" kerfuffles?

Has CAIR had other court battles such as the one involving the FBI and the authors of Muslim Mafia? If so, why have they not been included in the article? 64.134.222.142 (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well CAIR was sued by Michael Savage and I think there was a reciprocal suit which both were dropped in the end. BrotherSulayman (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Anti-CAIR-net dot org website provides some very interesting details about the former leaders and current leaders of CAIR. CAIR attempted to sue the website author for typical islomphobic gorp, but they droped the lawsuit because he was reporting fact, not slander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.206.179 (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Arrangement of History Section

The purely chronological list was not particularly informative. I think this section should be broken up into major stories and categories. I've started doing this by isolating the Holy Land Foundation case and CAIR's relationship with Congress since such large chunks of the previous article dealt with them. Maybe another good section would be "reaction to terrorist attacks" or something in this vein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimslave (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the history section can be a good idea if the major milestones are covered, because rather than list and describe every sort of action they take, the article could take us through CAIR's growth and evolution into what it is today. e.g. working for headscarf rights, allowing Muslim students time off for Eid holidays, conducting workplace sensitivity training, and putting out condemnations of terrorism. It would be great if the article laid those out in the article, but since that's not really done I'd say incorporate them into a timeline (for now at least) BrotherSulayman (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"blow to its standing"

Reading the third paragraph from the top; "The organization was dealt a significant blow to its standing..." seems quite dubious. The citation links to a report which cites a Washington Times article claiming membership fell, but CAIR denies it. According to the original citation, the story "was publicly discredited by CAIR executive director, Nihad Awad, who claimed the article was 'false and misleading.'" I think this needs to be revised in light of the fact that the source is arguing against the fact that being named a co-conspirator hurt the organization's membership and funding. From the actual citation itself, "All of the harms alleged by CAIR in its memorandum to this Court pertain to its decreasing membership and donations resulting from CAIR’s negative reputation within the United States prior to being named as an unindicted co-conspirator in this prosecution." (page 18)

I think this is ample basis for removing the paragraph, and keeping the claim in the Criticisms section of the page where it belongs and printing CAIR's refutation next to it. BrotherSulayman (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The ruling to which the article refers, http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_nait.html, does not indicate that the "unindicted co-conspirator ruling" was removed. The only ruling made was that the appeals court reversed the lower court's ruling that the opinion and ruling be sealed. It did not rule on the "unindicted co-conspirator" status of CAIR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.245.3 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I realize the legalese of the ruling is a bit hard to read, but I have 4 recent news sources[1] [2] [3] [4] that cite the ruling and conclude that CAIR was removed from the un-indicted co-conspirators list. The last link was from Politico, citing the same URL you posted. BrotherSulayman (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the portion of the entry which claims CAIR was removed from the un-indicted co-conspirators list. This statement is in error, and has no basis in fact. In fact, the Politico article states - "NAIT asked the appeals court to unseal Solis's opinion and to strike the part linking NAIT to HLF and Hamas. However, the appeals court declined to erase or vacate that part of Solis's opinion, which found there was "ample evidence to establish the association of ... NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association of Palestine ('IAP') and Hamas."" - Josh Gerstein, Politico — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

NALT and CAIR aren't the same organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

CAIR's fatwa

I want to edit the section talking about CAIR's fatwa and restore NPOV but I realize that could kick off an edit war by critics because I'll be deleting a reference and not putting anything suitable in its place. I thought I'd post it on the Talk page to show the problem. The offending sentence is "The fatwa was notable, however, in that it did not condemn attacks on military targets, and is not—like other fatwas—binding on Muslims everywhere." (Shienbaum) It's factually incorrect; if you look at the definition of fatwa you'll find that none "are binding on Muslims everywhere" since they are given by local scholars and in people's native languages. Second, although CAIR released this fatwa for American Muslims, it is consistent with fatwas released in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa, so it is de facto binding on Muslims everywhere (and thus not a valid criticism). Lastly, "attacks on military targets" is arguably not considered terrorism (according to the Wikipedia entry for it), so that shouldn't be a valid criticism for the page. Besides, CAIR has condemned attacks on the armed forces as well (most notably the Fort Hood shooting). Even so with all of this, I'd suggest anyone who wants to criticize the fatwa put it in the page's Criticisms section where it belongs. BrotherSulayman (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I commend you for bringing what you think may be a contentious edit to the talk page first. That, and your general attitude in the short time I've seen your editing, are highly gracious and commendable. As to the specifics, perhaps it would help if you were to precede the material you think is factually incorrect with "x said". That takes it out of Wiki's narrative voice, and puts it in the author's narrative voice. As to all of this, I would say that any "corrections" that appear in RSs are appropriate to reflect in the article, as long as they appear in relation to CAIR -- but not otherwise, per wp:synth. I don't have a considered view yet as to whether moving it to the criticism section is best. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm really happy for the feedback. I took your advice and tried presenting the material in that format, but it strikes me as the source just being a bad fit. I tried to remove the wp:synth problem that was blatant before it, but I don't think leaving the source in fixes the problem. The page is in the format of "CAIR did x in 2005," but the source and quote is making judgements on it (which may belong outside the timeline). Putting the other viewpoint in that paragraph for NPOV would result in a lengthy paragraph over what's in essence a small issue. BrotherSulayman (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Image from mainspace

I found this image in the article.

check from Holy Land Foundation
to CAIR

Are there any sources to back the image? Why would CAIR publish images of the donor cheques it receives? The title of the image "Check from terrorist organization HLF to Islamic organization CAIR" seems to show certain biases of the uploader.VR _talk 23:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

King hearings

The Peter King hearings seem to have been conducted in significant part to "expose" CAIR, and could be mentioned here. (see Missing target at King hearing: CAIR - Josh Gerstein and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com etc.). P.S. Old discussions at Talk:Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations... AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This check doesn't prove anything without the reverse side also being included, which will show whether or not it was negotiated and into which account. Anyone with a home printer and some check stock from any office supply store could produce a check made payable to or from anyone. At a minimum, the source for the image of the check needs to be cited.

Finally, the file name itself is misleading, as it reads "Screenshot of scanned check given to Islamic organization Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) by the terrorist organization Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development". No one has proven that this item was indeed given to CAIR or that CAIR negotiated it, just that this check exists. This is amateur at best, potentially fraudulent at worst. Former Operations Supervisor of Key Bank, N.A.69.29.155.98 (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

alleged IAP links

In the Early Years section, the first paragraph tries to link CAIR to Hamas via an alleged association of several founders to the IAP. The paragraph uses loaded words like "Islamist" and language that makes it sound like a proven connection existed, but the actual cited sources do not make that connection. I don't think that this attempt to draw an indirect link between the groups or accuse IAP belongs in the History section on the CAIR page, and is already heavily covered in the Criticisms section. I move to strike it from the History section due to its speculative, contested nature, and dubious citation. BrotherSulayman (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-racist?

Since when are muslim a race? I have seen arab muslims, chinese muslims (east asian), black muslims, WHITE muslims (even blonde blue-eyed "aryans", like Hitler´s wet dreams), etc. Islam is A RELIGION, not a race.--186.48.118.135 (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

"Racism" is often used in regard to ethnic groups rather than simply races. Yes, Islam is a religion, but in the US, it also has somewhat the character of an ethnic group since practitioners tend to have a number of shared cultural characteristics and/or traditions that group them together and in opposition to mainstream American culture. This is basically the same reason why the Chinese government considers the Hui people to be an ethnic group even though their main characteristic is simply Islam. Benwing (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Islam is not a "race" any more than it is just a religion - it is also a political ideology. A rather dangerous one. Criticisms of it cannot simply be dismissed as "racism" or "Islamaphobia". EyePhoenix (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion. One could draw parallels to Judaism, which some view as a race, some view as a religion, others view as a mix, and others view as a political ideology. CAIR isn't going after any typical criticism of Islam, but rather fighting the more extreme versions of Islamophobia that lead to discrimination and violation of civil liberties. BrotherSulayman (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"...More extreme versions...?" Did you read the section about Cair's campaign against a greeting card? But anyway, Cair calls it racism (I think cause that word is a strong one in the American lexicon), but WP's voice shouldn't, Islamaphobia is a form of discrimination. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed on CAIR calling it "racism." They did think it was bigotted; the card was making a joke about "shi'ite" with a curse word for fecal matter. Anyone could see how that is offensive, and shia in America were bothered by it. I think your change needs to be reverted. BrotherSulayman (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Related article?

I've just come across The Iran lobby in the United States, an orphaned article which looks potentially quite problematic - I don't know much about the topic, but it reads fairly one-sided, and may not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. (Apart from anything else, a contribution by a user called "Minitrue Propdep" is faintly alarming). It mentions this group specifically - could someone with expertise take a look? If need be, it may need deleting, or partially merging into Iran – United States relations.

Thanks, Shimgray | talk | 10:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources behind paywall

User Luke 19 Verse 27 has done a series of edits, some of which are decent, and some I don't think are conducive to the page. First, he has removed the reference to 222 anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hate crimes after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, claiming the source does not contain that statistic. Unfortunately the source is behind a paywall, and I can't see it from here to say whether it does or not. Searching the internet shows a LATimes article and NYTimes from nearly the same timeframe however, although CAIR is not referenced by name and instead referred to as a "defamation group." I think the text should be reverted and possibly the sources be replaced with these articles. Second, Luke 19 Verse 27 also deletes the word "offensive" from a complaint, citing " language. I've never seen an offensive greeting card, even at porn shops." While I don't wish to repeat it, the card was making a joke about "shi'ite" with a curse word for fecal matter. Anyone could see how that is offensive. I think these changes need to be reverted. BrotherSulayman (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

tough question brothersulayman. my thoughts: a) paywall - if it is not covered anywhere else, with CAIR mentioned by name, then maybe it just isn't so notable?; and b) i think for the word offensive to be included, then more info needs to be there. when i saw that the word 'offensive' was removed, i tended to agree (not because i have never seen an offensive greeting card, but because it did seem out of place). but now, i understand the issue better, having seen actual offensive play on words. so, can you try to reword it and get it in being more explicit without being offensive? Soosim (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms of CAIR

I was trying to figure out where the source that said CAIR came out and said women need to keep their heads covered (right now, referenced in a NYTimes article). I can't find any source other than the news article itself. I am not sure about past stances, but this most certainly does not sound like an issue that CAIR would espouse. Is one news article enough to cite to where there doesn't seem to be other evidence available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.250.85.65 (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, many have criticized CAIR for its presentations given in schools. One was given at Friendswood Junior High in Friendswood [5], TX, which caused outrage among parents in 2008. Parents and students were not notified of the presentation given. The ACLJ [6], the Houston Area Pastor's Council, and State Board Member David Bradley condemned the presentation as indoctrination. The school's principal, Robin Lowe, was forced to resign after the incident. CAIR also attempted to give a presentation to a school in Georgia in 2010; however, outraged parents prevented the presentation from taking place. In February of 2012, a presentation was given by CAIR in a school in Tampa Bay, FL. see [7]. --99.25.90.226 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Mike 99.25.90.226 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

content removal

Daniel Pipes and FrontPage magazine are fringe sources that do not belong in Wikipedia articles about topics other than themselves. The Ahmad quote is from a reliable source, but that source contains a great deal of material other than the quote and cherrypicking it to make CAIR look bad violates WP:NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

:I agree. FrontPage magazine is run by an ultra-conservative that goes by the name of Horowitz - who in and of himself has no credibility because of his racist views. And Daniel Pipes doesn't seem reliable either given how he's stated a number of horrendous things against a largely non-White minority in Europe who just happen to be Muslim (and who's also claimed that the odious myth, that "Obama is a Muslim"m is true). Numpty9991 (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC) - block evading sock puppet of Dalai Lama Ding Dong Beta Jones Mercury (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Co conspirator status

I have deleted the part about a judge removing CAIR from the unidicted co-conspirator list. This isn't true and wasn't supported by the sources provided. If you would like, I will write a piece about CAIR's attempt to get their name off the list, and where we are today, but don't put up false information about this, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources you added were laughable and likely violated BLP as well as our verifiability/neutrality policies. As I pointed out to you earlier, NALT and CAIR aren't the same organization; is this the origin of your confusion with the cited sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court's order only insofar as it requires that the opinion and order be sealed.  All other requests for relief are DENIED. The case is REMANDED to the district court to unseal its order in accordance with this opinion." http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1541982.html

AS I think is clear here, the Fifth Circuit merely unsealed the Attachment A list, and did not remove any names from the list. Any modifications made here to the contrary will be deleted by me. Livingengine1 (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be confusing NALT and CAIR. If you have a wording change, feel free to suggest it, but your removal of sourced information and your insertion of the other nonsense was obviously inappropriate. Additionally, your declaration that you intend to edit war to push your personal views is unlikely to be well received. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't what you are referring to when you say "NALT". It has nothing to do with CAIR's inclusion on the Attachment A list. No judge has removed their names from this list at any time. The sources that you provided do not qualify. As far as edit wars go, you are the one doing this. You are putting up false information, and I think it may qualify as vandalism at this point. Shall we take this to the administrator? Livingengine1 (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been meaning to say NAIT. I hope you understand now what I'm referring to. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand very well what the North American Islamic Trust is. They, along with the Islamic Society of North America, filed a request to have their names removed from the Attachment A list. On July 1, 2009 Judge Jorge Solis ruled in a decision combining both NAIT, ISNA and CAIR's request to have their names expunged from the Attachment A list. Judge Solis denied the request to expunge their names because "Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas."

However, Judge Solis agreed that their rights had been violated when the Attachment A list was made public. So, he had the Attachment A list sealed from public view along with his decision.

NAIT appealed this decision, and on 10/20/2010 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in NAIT's favor, ordering the unsealing of the Attachment A list, as well as, Judge Solis' decision, but said this about expunging -

". . . the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to expunge the mention of NAIT in the newly sealed attachment."

All that happened was a paper shuffle. If you have other relevant information, I am all ears, but so far, you are putting misinformation on the Wikipedia page. Livingengine1 (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So, again, would you like to propose alternate wording instead of removing sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by "again". I have have been up front about what I intended to do here, even giving an announcement here on the talk page, with no response from Roscelese, just straight to the blocking.

I find it interesting that neither Roscelese nor the admin Zad can tell me, either here or any where else, what is the offending part in this suggested entry for the 1993 Philadelphia Meeting.

Crying violation of BLP is something that has been noted for its over use, I think that is what is going on here.

What do you say Roscelese? Livingengine1 (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you declined to propose alternate wording, I myself have edited the content you added to make it acceptable. I've explained the BLP violation on the other page you've been trying to put the unacceptable content into...but I'm sure we would all be interested in hearing about how a "new" user is aware that BLP-flagwaving is a problem. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, well, well, I read it on Wikipedia, Roscelese.

You don't want to explain the BLP violation on this page, Roscelese? Why? Livingengine1 (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting changes to references for CAIR article

I'm requesting the removal of references # 5 and 8 and the addition of a reference to an NRO article by A. McCarthy:

McCarthy, Andrew C. (October 27, 2010). "Unindicted Coconspirators". National Review Online. Retrieved October 16, 2013.

This article by Andrew McCarthy states that the names were not removed or expunged, while giving a clear explanation of what happened.

Current reference #5, sourced to PRNewswire.com, should be removed entirely as it is mostly a press release from CAIR reported by PRNewswire.com.

Reference #8 from JewishJournal.com says that names were expunged* but we know this is not correct, so it doesn't support the current text as re-written by Roscelese.

* "By clearing CAIR and ISNA of “unindicted co-conspirator” status, the unsealing of Solis’ decision could have political consequences, as a number of conservative and pro-Israel groups had used the label to tar politicians associated with the groups."

Good job on the re-write, Roscelese, but couldn't you have done it before you got Livingengine1 blocked?

—requested by Mr. IP 72.66.30.115 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it is not a good job. It is wrong. It is still wrong. Its even worse, now. His citations include CAIR Press Releases. Outrageous. Livingengine1 (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

LE1 was blocked for violating BLP after far too many warnings, not for trying to change this section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, Roscelese. How long have you known that the phrase formerly in the lead "A federal appeals court removed the label [of unindicted co-conspirator] for all parties . . ." was factually incorrect? Livingengine1's first edit to the article, on Sept. 14, 2013, with a full, explanatory edit summary, was to correct this error of fact. You reverted his edit. (Do we agree that the only name expunged was NAIT, and that in one place but not in another place?) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I became aware that it was incorrect when LE1 posted a link to the full decision with a relevant excerpt; I'd made a mistake when looking at the sources before, whether because they were unclear or because I wasn't familiar enough with the relevant caselaw (which is Briggs - the fact that they are named but not indicted means they suffer damage to their reputation but don't have a chance to defend themselves in court). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely transparent, it doesn't even qualify as a fig leaf.

He let an untruth, a complete reversal of fact, sit on Wikipedia for three years. If you look at the section above titled "blow to its standing", you will see other people have noted that the citations contradicted what was being stated at Wikipedia, that CAIR had been taken off the list.

Now, he says this, (and it is not true, either.) - " a federal appeals court sealed the list on October 20, 2010, ruling the designation violated the group's rights and was the result of "simply an untested allegation of the Government, made in anticipation of a possible evidentiary dispute that never came to pass," but that the designation would not be removed because the government had produced enough evidence to establish the group's relationship with the defendants"

You are telling me this is not a violation of a neutral point of view?

He is consistently wrong in exactly the same way, and overly protective of this falsity.

I really have to complain. Roscelese is behaving like a CAIR partisan. This needs to stop. I want to know if Roscelese is going to work with me on improving this article, or is he going to insist on his propaganda?

I would like you to start addressing me, Roscelese. Are you going to co operate, or not? If you will not talk to me, I will talk to other people about this.

There is a clear pattern of putting false information here.

Why don't we keep it between ourselves, rather than involve admins, and all that?

Talk to me, Roscelese.Livingengine1 (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Livingengine1, I can't edit the article page because it's protected and I'm an IP. If you agree with my arguments that ref #5 and 8 should be removed, then remove them for me. It's a start. (PS: stop whining—it's a given that Roscelese is partisan; we still have to play the game by the rules.) --72.66.30.115 (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)