Redstate

Hi, random Democrat passing through. CAIR is a pretty nasty outfit, even worse than depicted above. I recommend googling them, or checking out the wikipedia article on them.

"The First Amendment and I have been evicted from ABC Radio in Washington, DC."

Editorial control IS the exercise of a freedom protected by the first amendment. It's ABC Radio's station, and they can take him off the air whenever they want.

They might be wrong, they might be trying to be "good liberal^W corporate citizens" like every other big media corporation, but nobody's first amendment rights were infringed when this guy got fired.

The Lizardoids at LGF have a smokin' hot thread going...

He had a great program...can't belive they bowed to cair

what did he actually say?

aside, he does make a good point that an organization that is reluctant to condemn Islamic murderers demands he be fired for his comments.

I can't help but think of all the Catholic slamming that went on during the pedophile scandal, and I am willing to bet nobody got fired for some of their comments.

He told that Islam is ter**st organization and people who are belong to Islam are part of ter*st organization.

He should be fired.

Calling Islam a terrorist organization is definitely across the line.

I know this for fact, because his show in my home area.

From the Washington Times

"Because of the mix of Islamic theology that -- rightly or wrongly -- is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn't have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don't support terror will step forward and reclaim their religion."

From WND:

"If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization," he said. "If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder - and the scoutmasters in charge simply said 'Could be' - the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago."

ME: These things should be put into context before we pass judgment. After reading these quotes, they simply don't rise to the level of bigoted comments that warrants firing. Remember, CAIR exists to promote positive images of Islam, and it viciously attacks anyone who doesn't go along with their radical program. I conclude that if CAIR is against something, it must be good.

As for ABC, yes, they have a 1st Amendment right to have whatever views they want on their own airwaves, but they just should let everyone know in advance that they don't allow comments like the ones that Graham said. They should be honest with their listeners that they won't tolerate anything on their airwaves that offends CAIR. They won't do that, of course, they'll still wrap themselves in the notion of "free speech" when it suits them, and as we've seen, discard it when it to appease the evil forces of political correctness.

You can't call the 2nd largest religion in the world a terrorist organization.

Islam doesn't HAVE an "organizational structure".

And his absurd analogy of the boy scouts is insulting.

If 10 boys inside the boys scouts decide to join some suicidal cult and go off to a school and kill 150 people NO ONE is going to say that the Boy Scout promote murder.  

If you think that calling Islam a terrorist organization only offends CAIR then you are being naive or insincere.  

ABC is a business first and foremost.  

(and I quote from the ads they ran for his station) as a "WMAL's right-wing nutjob," and then fired him when he lived up to his billing by saying something controversial.  I didn't really like the guy's show, so I won't be particularly sorry to see him gone from the radio, but I hate to see him fired for the sake of an astroturf campaign drummed up by the terrorist fellow-travellers at CAIR.

From their website:

CAIR backs Fatwa against Terror

English, Arabic, Urdu radio anti-terror PSAs released

(Washington, D.C., 7/28/05) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today offered its support for a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism issued by the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and endorsed by more than 120 U.S. Muslim groups, leaders and institutions. (The term "fiqh" refers to Islamic jurisprudence.) The fatwa, released during a news conference this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., states in part:

"Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram - or forbidden - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not martyrs ... In the light of the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state: 1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam. 2. It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence. 3. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians. We issue this fatwa following the guidance of our scripture, the Qur'an, and the teachings of our Prophet Muhammad - peace be upon him."

And here's the text of the fatwa they support:

The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam's absolute condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism.

Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram - or forbidden - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not "martyrs."

The Qur'an, Islam's revealed text, states: "Whoever kills a person [unjustly]...it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind." (Qur'an, 5:32)

Prophet Muhammad said there is no excuse for committing unjust acts: "Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil." (Al-Tirmidhi)

God mandates moderation in faith and in all aspects of life when He states in the Qur'an: "We made you to be a community of the middle way, so that (with the example of your lives) you might bear witness to the truth before all mankind." (Qur'an, 2:143)

In another verse, God explains our duties as human beings when he says: "Let there arise from among you a band of people who invite to righteousness, and enjoin good and forbid evil." (Qur'an, 3:104)

Islam teaches us to act in a caring manner to all of God's creation. The Prophet Muhammad, who is described in the Qur'an as "a mercy to the worlds" said: "All creation is the family of God, and the person most beloved by God (is the one) who is kind and caring toward His family."

In the light of the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state:

1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam.
   
   
2. It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.
   
   
3. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

We issue this fatwa following the guidance of our scripture, the Qur'an, and the teachings of our Prophet Muhammad - peace be upon him. We urge all people to resolve all conflicts in just and peaceful manners.

We pray for the defeat of extremism and terrorism. We pray for the safety and security of our country, the United States, and its people. We pray for the safety and security of all inhabitants of our planet. We pray that interfaith harmony and cooperation prevail both in the United States and all around the globe.  

Looks to me like they've already condemned Islamic murderers by issuing a fatwa against them and Michael Graham has just had a "Tancredo moment" where he said something patently stupid that some people will (unfortunately) feel compelled to defend because they fail to make the distinction between condemning extremists within a religion to condemning the religion itself.

For those wondering who the "moderate Muslims" are, I would suggest looking at the members of the police and armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq who we are working with to help to defeat the terrorists and help their peoples build a decent society.  They're just as much of a target (if not more so) as our troops as smearing their faith as a "terrorist organization" is a slap in the face of noble people who are literally fighting and dying along side ours for the same cause.

that this information isn't in the original post?

for those of us who don't catch every story out there, a link would have been appreciated.

--Takes off angry knee-jerk face--

--Puts on calm happy zen face--

decided to support the Fatwa, also there isn't too many specifics in there, why not name some of these groups by name-like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Quaida?

Why aren't they condemning some of these terrorists by name?  Why aren't they condemning by name the leaders who encourage suicide bombings and attacks?

Sure it is a nice first step, but they waited an awfully long time to issue that Fatwa don't you think?

Apparently, CAIR demanded Michael Graham's firing on July 25, 2005. His remarks were made before they issued the fatwa. They issued this press release on July 28, 2005. Almost 1500 days AFTER 9/11!

His comments were in regards to a group of supposedly moderate Islamists getting together in London and refusing to condemn all terrorist acts against civilians. They simply wouldn't do it!

4 years after 9/11, CAIR is now coming out and backing a fatwa against terrorism. It looks pretty politically expedient with all the heat from the London bombings. Suffice to say, ABC has a right to hire broadcasters that promote their views. What they are doing is showing us who they side with, extremist organizations such as CAIR. Once again, mainstream media sides with political correctness.

Here's some background on CAIR, by the way...

["In April, the founder of the Texas chapter of CAIR, Ghassan Elashi was found guilty of supporting terrorism. Elashi, along with two brothers, was convicted in Dallas of channeling funds to a high-ranking official of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook. Elashi was the third CAIR figure to be convicted on federal terrorism charges since 9-11.

CAIR is a spin-off of the Richardson, Texas-based Islamic Association For Palestine, or IAP, which was founded by Marzook. Former FBI counterterrorism chief Oliver Revell has called the IAF "a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants.">

(This was taken from Worldnetdaily in an article posted by Joseph Farah on August 21st.)

What they are doing is showing us who they side with, extremist organizations such as CAIR. Once again, mainstream media sides with political correctness

If you think that is what they are doing you have a really warped sense of reality.  

As much as Graham would like you to think it is. They were only one voice among a chorus of people (including myself) asking Graham to apologize.

And despite his retort, it's not about freedom of speech either.

The issue was whether WMAL would stand by Graham's statement that Islam was a "terrorist organization" (you'll notice, he doesn't repeat the offending statement in this piece...why not, if it wasn't objectionable?). Further, the issue was whether WMAL has any journalistic standards or just lets their talent spout any vile garbage that pops into their heads, regardless of how many innocent people might be hurt by it.

For him to pretend his intentions were to help moderate Muslims is indication he has no shame, no integrity, and no business on a radio station that wants to be taken seriously. Good riddance!

Wow! What are your credentials to determine that my sense of reality is warped? Is everyone that disagrees with you warped, or just me?

You say in an earlier post, "You can't call the 2nd largest religion in the world a terrorist organization."

Who can't? Anybody, or just people on the radio? Is that quotation a command? How about Salmon Rushdie, who is calling for a major reformation in Islam? Can he say that? Is his thinking warped?

Perhaps you side with the Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain who would like to outlaw anyone calling a Muslim a terrorist. According to Rushdie,

He said as recently as Jan. 13, "There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered [i.e., banned] by this provision."

Should we have such provisions here? Or should we only have such speech laws for people who broadcast over the airwaves? Would you agree, then, that everyone who has called George Bush a terrorist, either in print, or video should also be fired? Would this also apply to what is deemed by hateful speech by other religions and organizations. Are there any religions that it would be okay to criticize, or call a name, i.e. Presybyterians and Episcopalians, because everyone knows they are pampered, rich white people?

so you're offended. turn off your radio. and firing a ratings grabbing host is terrible radio business.

Anyway, I didn't say I agreed with Graham, just that I don't find it offensive. ABC's action is more offensive than anything Graham said.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200508221729.asp

CAIR might be the devil for all I care.  That isn't who WMAL folded to.  I will grant you that they were a loud voice, but CAIR doesn't listen to WMAL, and WMAL doesn't care about CAIR.  WMAL folded to the pressure from its listeners and advertisers.  From todays wapo:

"The protests led several advertisers to ask WMAL to stop airing their ads during Graham's weekday show...

"Chris Berry, WMAL's president and general manager, disputed Graham's characterization, saying in an interview that "no one involved in this decision ever had any contact with anyone from CAIR." Instead, he said, Graham was terminated because he violated station policy and disregarded "management direction" to redress it.."

Me: So I applaud Redstate for finding a way to turn Graham's firing into a forum for anti-CAIR rhetoric, but that isn't what this story is about.  It's about capitalism working.

we don't conflate 3 different issues together?

We ARE NOT talking about passing laws restricting speech.  We are NOT talking about what some Muslim guy in Britain is ranting about.  

We are talking about Michael Graham saying that Islam is a terrorist organization thus calling 1 Billion people terrorists.  

Michael Graham is free to say whatever he want.  And ABC is free to FIRE him for saying those things.  Just like ABC would be free to fire someone for saying "Christianity is a doctor killing organization".  

People here at RedState were in a FUROR over Howard Dean's comment about Republicans being white Christian.  Dean said NOTHING derogatory but the IMPLIED insult was enough to OUTRAGE numerous Christians AND Republicans.

Why does ABC's actions offend you in any way?  They are a business.  They couldn't care less about making political points.  They care about making money.  They felt that Graham was too costly to keep around.  

FTR, the comment doesn't offend me personally.  But I can certainly see how the millions of Muslims in this country that have been combatting an image of supporting terrorism for years would take offense at being accused of being terrorists.

That's just the point.  We are talking about what some Muslim guy in London is ranting about. And that Muslim guy was beknighted, by the way. The entire conversation that got the man fired was based on a meeting of "moderate" Muslims in England who refused to condemn terrorism in all cases. So, my comment had everything to do with the subject.

When you make that comment that you can't say Muslims are terrorists, you opened the other issues you say are beside the point, but I think you dodged the question. Whether it's a law or not, do you think any  speech regarding religion should be sacrosanct? Do you think all people who make inflamatory remarks about any religion over the airwaves should be fired? Should anyone who calls another person a terrorist be fired? People have the right to be in a furor over anything they please, however, I think the double standard is quite bothersome to many of us.

You don't think it was derogatory for Dean to be so dismissive of Christians? Most people are more intelligent then you give them credit for, and yes, were quite upset by many of his remarks. Of course he didn't get fired, he got hired to the DNC as a reward for his many, many, inflammatory remarks. Muslim organizations definitely have the right to protest any speech they deem derogatory or inflammatory. The question is, should everyone they disagree with be fired? Dean also said: he hate's republicans and everything they stand for, all republicans are the same, republicans have never made an honest living in their lives, John Ashcroft is a descendent of Joseph McCarthy, and so on. Is it okay to make broad, unproved statements about Christians, but not okay to make negative comments about Islam?

My objection to your post was that you implied that because I disagree with you, my thinking is warped. I personally believe in a person's right to express their views. I also believe that ABC had the perogative to fire him. I also believe that the many conservative listeners to the station have the right to turn the station off!

that some can or cannot say something.  People can say whatever they like.  And if what they say offends their employers they can get fired for it.

Please tell me what unproved statements about Christians Howard Dean said.  I am very curious.

It's not that you disagree with me that makes me think your view of things is warped.  It is WHY you disagree with me.

you can't say Muslims are terrorists and be taken seriously or keep your job as a legitimate politcal analyst.

I think that was pretty obvious.

and they wrap themselves in the ideals of free speech when it suits them and ignore it when it is inconvenient. So what? This debate isn't about whether or not ABC has a right to determine its content any more than Sheehananoia is about whether that kook has a right to protest the war. No one is disputing the existence of the right and I'm not saying that ABC doesn't have the right to fire any host they want for any reason they want. I just think they were wrong to do so. Just because they have a right to do something, doesn't mean they ought to.

It simply doesn't strike me as good business judgment to turn off its listeners by firing a popular host for expressing a viewpoint, right or wrong, that some extremist group finds offensive.

If it is going to be the policy of ABC to fire any host that says something that offends CAIR or any other Muslim they should be honest about it from the get-go, rather than pretend to be champions of free speech until political correctness tells them otherwise. Graham got fired because he pissed off CAIR, and ABC didn't have the sack to tell CAIR that in this country, if someone says something you don't like, you make the counterpoint, not shut the speaker up. CAIR exists to silence critics of Islam. That is their mission and is the antithesis of the principle of free speech. That's why ABC's action is more offensive than anything Graham said.

be the ones to determine what makes the most business sense for their business?

All right, I don't want to hijack this post with a debate about Howard Dean, but as he feels all republicans are white Christians and he hates republicans--and everything they stand for, then don't the remarks he's made about Republicans smear Christians?

I won't stoop to returning your insults, but I would say that generically, negatively labelling people that disagree with you really detracts from your argument. Resorting to name calling rather than substantively arguing the question only reflects negatively on you.

I probably shouldn't have taken the shot at you.  For that I apologize.  I inferred a certain hostility and I responded in that context.

FTR, however, your logic in the first sentence is shaky.

You have 3 points.  Dean claims that all<sic> Republicans are white Christians.  He hates Republicans<sic>.  Dean hates Christians.

This logic requires that Dean equates Republicans and Christians to be the same.  However simply because he believes that Republicans are a group of Christians doesn't mean that he considers all Chrisitans to be Republicans anymore than if he felt that most White Supremacists were Christians that doesn't mean that Christians were White Supremacists.

...from their former listeners in making that determination.  

There may be "millions of Muslims in this country that have been combatting an image of supporting terrorism for years" , but it must be a stoic, quiet, personal struggle for most of them... a sort of "Jihad"... using the new, sanitized, CAIR-approved definition of "Jihad", of course.

But Dean himself stated that the Republican party was pretty much all the same: white, christians.

Here is the quote from the San Francisco Chronicle: it's "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

Dean didn't say: evangelical Christians, or conservative Christians, he said Christians. Once again, just making a logical progression from his own words. Dean is the guy who keeps using the word "all."

FLASH: KFI-AM Los Angeles HIRES Talk Show Host Graham FIRED By WMAL After Islam Remarks...

'KFI has an extended offer for Michael Graham to fill in at the station because KFI still values free speech,' says KFI pd, Robin Bertolucci... Developing...

Just for everyone's info, CAIR DID condemn terrorism and extremism and issued a statement on September 12th 2001, which was published in the Washington Post, September 16th. One of their leading figures (Ibrahim Hooper) also condemned Bin Laden & AlQaeda on several TV networks several several times. I find it strange why anyone would intentionally lie and claim that CAIR took no steps towards condemning terrorism & extremism until Michael Graham's incident took place. Just because you don't like Muslims/Islam that doesn't mean that every single Muslim organization out there is necessarily sympathetic to AlQaeda. Please DO a little reading before you attempt to defame CAIR or any other organization this way you can defame it on legitimate grounds, not on accusations based on a lie.

Now that I'm done with the anti-Muslim hawks, I move on to CAIR itself. CAIR is a hypocritical organization that has very little, if any, following amongst America's Muslims. It issues Fatwas, edicts, rulings, decrees, and statements based on what it sees politically and socially fit, not necessarily based on actual rulings from Islam that Muslim communities seem to have some recognition of. I will not get into details about that because if you're not very familiar with America's Muslim community or with Islam, you won't get what I'm talking about. CAIR's condemnation, appraisal, steaming over, or support of any issue that's related to America & Islam shouldn't be taken seriously or taken as a true representative of Islam.

I will cite only one example of hypocrisy and double-standard dealings of CAIR's. CAIR did not hesitate one bit to condemn AlQaeda and Bin Laden after 9-11, but when it comes to Hamas & Hezbollah, CAIR does more than its fair share of waffling and beating around the bush. It issues generalized statements condemning extremism, radicalism, fanaticism, and terrorism.. but it keeps them JUST that : General Statements. It doesn't touch Hamas or Hezbollah by name at all. I am not familiar with their recent statements since I didn't read any of their material for a long time, but last I heard from them, years ago, their statements in regard to Hamas and Hezbollah in particular were way to general and never mentioned names or come close to condemning Hamas & Hezbollah policies and practices. Why do you suppose this double-dealing and double-standards when it comes to militant Islamic organization that are on America's terror list? The reason is that CAIR's leading figures have a high percentage of Palestinian-Americans amongst them. For instance, Nihad Awadd, Executive Director of CAIR is a Palestinian-American. For this reason, they are VERY reluctant to condemn a Palestinian Islamic militant organization like Hamas or a Lebanese Islamic militant organization like Hezbollah because this one also plays on the Palestinian cause. If you ask : then how come they condemn AlQaeda? Isn't that just like condemning Hamas? .. Actually, it's not.

To most Americans, any Muslim who doesn't like America's foreign policy and takes a militant approach in response is all the same. All Muslim militants are alike and have the same goals and aspirations and use the same tools and techniques to achieve these common goals. Most Americans can't tell the difference between AlQaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and any other militant Muslim group. In reality, these organizations are a world apart. And here is a surprise for you : these organizations hate each other vehemently.. with passion. Hamas seeks to establish a Palestinian State for Palestinians, yes they give lip-service to common Islamic beliefs and aspirations, but that's only for propaganda purposes, strictly. At the end of the day, if they get a Palestinian state ruled by a Christian Palestinian, they would be more than happy with it and they would count that as a liberation of their land. It's a national sub-ethnic movement that just puts on a religious robe; that's Hamas in a nutshell. AlQaeda on the other hand is a strictly ideological group. Paying much attention to national, ethnic, and cultural ties is considered racism in AlQaeda's thinking. It seeks to establish a structure of governance for anyone who shares Islamic ideology (i.e. Muslim) with the rest of the citizens of that political structure. The least of its concerns is what nationality its members come from or what culture they were brought up in. Therefore, AlQaeda views Hamas as a racist organization, while Hamas views AlQaeda as an anti-patriotic idealistic illusionary movement. Hezbollah is a totally different story: it doesn't give a flip about Palestinian patriotic aspirations, it hates the concept of a grand Islamic governance that puts it and AlQaeda on equal footing, and it utterly hates Saudi Arabia and anything connected to it. Hezbollah seeks to establish an Iranian Shia grand structure of governance. It is similar to AlQaeda but has two additional elements : 1- It's from the Shia sect, 2- It puts great emphasis on the greatness of Persian culture. Also I'd like to add that all of the statements you hear from Hezbollah about their support of the Palestinian cause are strictly propaganda statements. Hezbollah couldn't care less about Palestinians and their dreams, but at the same time it knows that the Palestinian cause is a sentimental issue that can easily be used for propaganda purposes and local political promotion just like it's been used by Qadafi, Sadam Hussein, and almost every singly political party & leader in the middle east.

I think I've given enough information to the reader to see some of the very obvious deep differences between militant Muslim groups. CAIR with its sympathy for Palestinians and their cause is reluctant to condemn Hamas's attacks, while it doesn't have much reluctance to condemn the actions of the ideologically-driven not-particularly-Palestinian organization called AlQaeda.

This my friend is how you can expose CAIR's double-standards and multi-faces without resorting to lying that exposes your ignorance.

The Peoples' Liberation Front of Judea and the Judean Peoples' Front for Liberation are not at all similar.

Which is to say, while Jeb has most of his specifics correct, he misses the forest for the trees.

Do you care to explain how/where I got mixed up?

Thanks in advance.