In Heretics Crusade’s latest look at the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association we examine their first published “event.”
As I showed in earlier articles, the CMSA requires attendance at their events and programs in order for its members to obtain voting rights. The rub was that until recently there were no events posted on the CMSA website. After I highlighted that omission several times the CMSA obliged with this:
Congressional Muslim Staffers Association
Public & International Affairs Briefing Series
A Briefing on U.S. Monitoring of the International Status of
Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion or Belief
Presentation and Q&A with:
Acting Executive Director
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
Friday, November 13, 2009
11:00AM to 12:00PM
2456 Rayburn H.O.B.
U.S. House of Representatives
Knox Thames? Who is he you ask? I would like to be able to report that Mr. Thames is an outspoken moderate who stands firmly against the Islamist mentality. We do not always get to do what we like. This is one of those times.
The Religious Liberty Dinner 2010 website
“H. Knox Thames, Esq.
Mr. Thames served as Counsel to the United States Helsinki Commission, a federal agency that works with Congress to monitor human rights within the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) region, from 2001 to 2007. Mr. Thames led the work of the Commission in monitoring religious freedom and issues concerning refugees and internally displaced persons in all 56 OSCE countries. He also served as a member of U.S. State Department delegations to numerous OSCE meetings, and has traveled on behalf of the Commission throughout Europe and Central Asia. The State Department also selected Mr. Thames to serve as one of the two U.S. appointees to the OSCE Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief.”
In following Mr. Thames’ trail across the internet I have come to the opinion that he is like a very skilled doctor that calmly and accurately diagnoses an aggressive cancer and goes into detail about what is wrong and what the progress of the cancer will be… then tells the patient to continue with the aspirin their mother gave them; she knows best.
When it comes to Islam Mr. Thames shows even more double-think than the usual Leftist. He is interesting in that he goes into full detail in laying out a fairly objective view of a situation and then makes conclusions that come solely from his programmed ideology instead of the facts.
I could only find a couple of pieces that reflect Knox’s own views rather than a group consensus.
I will focus on one he wrote in 2005 titled Governmental Responses to Muslim Populations in Western Europe:
“Islam qua Islam is a religion of peace and not of violence. Muslims who pervert the teachings of Islam to justify terrorism are a small, radicalized minority of the faith.”
Here anyone who is familiar with the details of the Quran, Hadith and Shari ‘a can see that this statement is totally disingenuous. It may be that many Muslims wish to ignore Shari ‘a and re-edit the Hadith to support their own, personal urges toward a civil religion. It is false however to say that ISLAM is about peace and not violence.
At least to Western minds it is false. It is a habit with Muslim apologists to point out that Islam did not spread the religion by the sword. It merely conquered those evil non-Islamic governments so the people could be “free” to choose the “right” faith.” Then they had peace!
“Yet after the September 11th attacks in New York and the March 11th train bombings in Madrid [and London 4 months after this was written (GDW)], the threat of Islamist-based terrorism has loomed large in the minds of Europeans. European governments must now grapple with how to provide their citizens with security and effectively investigate leads, yet avoid painting all adherents of Islam as dangerous to society.”
I think that here he needs to define just what he means by “adherent” and, especially, “Islam” before we can accept this statement. The problem is the Shari‘a that “adherent” Muslims are supposed to follow. This religious law is based in the Quran and the Hadith; stories about the acts and words of Mohammed compiled two hundred years after his death. That compilation contains many tales justifying horrific cruelty and discrimination against women and non-Muslims, even children. Under Shari ‘a it is murder to kill someone unjustly, unless that person is your own child or grandchild, then the Islamic Law says it is not a crime at all. To an “adherent” Muslim an honor killing is not murder, it is more of a familial house cleaning in order to maintain rightness in the eyes of God.
Further the “adherent” Muslim is instructed by the Hadith and Shari ‘a to strictly avoid submitting to ANY secular laws that conflict with Shari ‘a. How far each individual Muslim takes this injunction is a personal matter. What is not personal is that virtually all “devout” Muslims accept this concept as a matter of course.
Also personal is how far each Muslim takes the injunction to spread Islam BY ANY MEANS. The injunction itself however, is not equivocal nor is it something that goes against “the grain” of Islamic ideology.
Add to this that it is a core teaching of all the major sects of Islam that Mohammed was as perfect as a human could be and that his acts and words form a template for the “ideal man.” As such anything that Mohammed did CANNOT be wrong and anything Mohammed disliked or put down is inherently evil.
The problem is that this man devout Muslims hold up to be imitated was a thin-skinned warlord who ordered people killed for insulting him and advised his followers to break any oath if “they find something better [to swear to]”, lied about what people said to sooth someone’s feelings, consummated a marriage with a nine year old and forced a Christian woman to marry him after he had killed her husband and father; so he could “protect” her of course.
This is not a figure that strikes a Westerner as ANY kind of role model but Muslims are taught from birth that he is the ONLY true role model. Cognitive dissonance is a polite term for what results when you take a devout Muslim and place them in a Western country.
The fact of the matter is that the “devout” Muslim is “peaceful” only when their religious supremacism is not challenged in a meaningful fashion. Muslims may choose to live lives of peace but Islam, an ideology that insists that the murder of a non-Muslim (criminal against God) is ALWAYS less evil than the OPPRESSION of a Muslim, clearly does not promote peace. At least not as Westerners think of it.
In witness of this observe how often a “devout” Muslim REFUSES to condemn any action by a Muslim to a non-Muslim NO MATTER THE RIGHTENESS OR WRONGNESS of the act!!! There can be no better indication than this of how the Islamic mindset DEMANDS a bi-polar view of humanity with non-Muslims occupying an eternally lower tier, in terms both of their rights, and worth in God’s eyes.
“Over the past several years, European governments have initiated efforts to engage their Muslim populations, while also monitoring them in an attempt to control perceived sources of instability, violence, and conflict. From an academic perspective, it has been interesting to observe the actions of governmental and political leaders in response to their large and marginalized Muslim communities. From a human rights and civil liberties perspective, it has also become increasingly troubling.”
Here we go again with the Leftist two-step of declaring actual sources of instability to be merely “perceived sources” followed by an appeal to victim status with the label “marginalized”. No effort is made by Mr. Thames to comment on the largely self inflicted nature of that marginalization.
“It is not difficult to see why Europe is concerned. Four of the 9/11 hijackers were students together in Hamburg, Germany. Richard Reid, the so-called “shoe bomber,” was born in London and carried a British passport. The perpetrators of the Madrid train bombings came from terrorist cells in Spain and possibly Italy.
“Yet it is here that the tension between respect for civil rights and effective security measures is felt. These realities present two questions with no easy answers. First, how strongly can a government legitimately push for assimilation of religious minorities before its actions unduly burden legitimate human rights? Second, how far can Western democracies reach in order to preempt Islamist-based terrorism, without further marginalizing their Muslim citizens?”
Here we first see Mr. Thames’ talent for stating an objective analysis and then homing in on the wrong issue. The line is bright and clear for all who do not seek to cross it; laws must be followed by all and all laws must by applied equally to any act “religious” or otherwise, no matter who “commits” it.
The only people who can’t seem to deal with those rules are the very people who seek to make THEIR religion master of all the other’s.
“In this article I will highlight several examples of where Western European governments are improperly limiting, or could potentially abridge, the civil liberties and basic rights of their Muslim populations. Government efforts to force assimilation, along with steps to combat terrorism, have in some cases unduly limited or vitiated the enjoyment of fundamental rights.”
Here genuflecting at the altar of Political Correctness, H. Knox shows how far he can go to ignore any obligations the “Muslim Populations” might have to assimilate and combat terrorism in their host’s land.
Granted that it is not good to “unduly limit or vitiate the enjoyment of fundamental rights” Mr. Thames says nothing about what constitutes “duly” when a population actively refuses to respect local laws.
“Policymakers must be mindful of the explosive confluence of a growing Muslim population, the events of 9/11 and 3/11, and increased government scrutiny of minorities. Infringements on civil liberties may well push Muslims further from the European community and only serve to alienate and radicalize them.”
I must say that Knox got plenty of bang for his bucks in his rhetoric classes. I count two implied threats followed by two direct threats, leading into a subtle but extortionate demand, followed by a final double threat. And he did it all in only two sentences!
The demand is basically to stop paying attention to what goes on in the Islamic community and to not interfere when local laws are violated by Muslims for “religious” reasons. The threat is obvious; 9/11 after 9/11 until the Muslim population is large enough and then…well, I think the message that Mr. Thames wants to convey is a twisted form of “what ye sow, so shall ye reap.” better phrased as “You let us sow your fields, now reap the whirlwind”!
“With deep historical roots in Europe, Islam is often cited as the fastest growing religion within the member countries of the European Union, with an estimated 12 million adherents living mostly in religious and ethnic enclaves throughout the continent. As a result of continued immigration and a decreasing birthrate among non-Muslim Europeans, Islam is increasing its representation. At the same time that “traditional” Europeans are declining in number due to changes in family size, the EU is continuing to expand into the former realms of the Ottoman Empire. Considering Turkey’s 68 million citizens, 99 percent of whom are Muslim, along with significant Muslim populations in Bulgaria and Bosnia, Islam’s demographic significance within the European Union will only continue to grow.”
It is growing harder and harder as we read this document to pretend that Mr. Thames is on the side of Western civilization against the Islamic Supremacists. “…deep historical roots…”? Is that what we now call centuries of invasion and cultural genocide by Muslims against European nations? The much gentler activity by the West toward non-European lands is called evil colonialism. Forgive me, but I think I see a double standard here.
In this paragraph we can see once again how many distortions and interpolations Mr. Thames can pack into his casual flow of words. He parrots the canard about Muslims growing faster, while avoiding admitting the draconian rules that force a maximum number of Muslims and prevent loss of “official” Muslims from the tally. Topping off the arrogance is his assumption of complete inevitability regarding Turkey being granted E.U. membership. He then uses that assumption as his trump card, saying (correctly) that when Turkey is a member resisting the Islamification of the E.U. will be completely useless.
“The changing demography has produced growing pains, as secular European governments struggle to adapt to their large and devout Muslim populations. … In addition to increasing numbers, Muslims are more devout than the average European. … In an age of religious skepticism and high regard for complete secularism, resolute adherence to the faith has caused further divisions between European Muslims and traditional Europeans.”
Bombing and riots and arson and rapes and “no-go zones” are a bit much to be called “growing pains in my book. In fact I find the term to be insulting to the intelligence of anyone aware of the facts. Also insulting is his triple assault on Western legal traditions (won with blood and suffering in our own religious wars) by claiming a greater “devoutness” as though this abrogates the 300 years of Enlightenment tradition that underlies European culture.
“…Just as European governments began to grapple and engage this oft-neglected community of immigrants and their progeny, the events of September 11 shocked the world. Distressed that several of the hijackers came from extremist Islamist cells within Europe, governments took resolute actions to apprehend criminals by looking for individuals hiding in Muslim communities. Scrutiny of Muslim communities also intensified because of the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Europe. In the spring of 2002 Western Europe witnessed a profound spike in anti-Semitic acts unparalleled since the 1930s and 1940s. Many indicators suggest these incidents are not just examples of the “old” anti-Semitism of the far right, but also a new type of anti-Semitism, namely that stemming from disenfranchised European Muslim youth.”
At first glance the above bit is puzzling. Suddenly Knox seems to be looking at the situation from the other side. Fear not gentle reader, Mr. Thames’ taqqiya is intact if this is just another way for him to say “Nice little Europe you have here, shame if something happened to it…”!
“Searching for ways to engage their Muslim communities and protect their citizens from future attacks, some governments are increasing surveillance and restricting civil liberties, essentially forcing Muslims to assimilate to the traditional culture of their countries, rather than allowing them to organically integrate. The propinquity of these demographic realities with the “war on terror,” and the subsequent concerns about small, insular, and devout religious communities being sleeper cells within Europe, have left peaceful Muslim communities with a sense of isolation and often bewilderment.”
This is one of those paragraphs where you read it, shake your head, and read it again to see what it means, and then go back and SLOWLY read it a third time to try to figure out what it REALLY means.
Since there were few “anti-Muslim” laws back in ’05 I can only read this to mean “restricting civil liberties” is used instead of saying “making Muslims obey the laws relating to the human rights of family members, especially women and children.”
As nearly as my Accutron FanaticBabble 2.0 translator can tell, the last sentence in the paragraph means that the very real threat of sleeper cells in the Islamic communities of Europe makes those communities nervous. Given that their faith commands they not expose these (misguided but still Muslim) cells to authorities they regard as Satanic, it is not surprising that even the non-violent Muslims are “nervous.”
“.. They did so by limiting foreign influences and subsidizing mosques (and other religious communities) in an attempt to promote conformity with Spanish culture and limit Islamist rhetoric and extremist actions. Concerns about Saudi funding of the fundamentalist Wahabbi version of Islam are certainly justifiable, but Spanish efforts may only serve to interject the government into intra-religious discussions in which it does not belong.”
More stunning double-think from H. Knox. Mr. Thames admits that concerns about Saudi funded Wahabbi influence are “justifiable” but once again passes by that camel to strain at the gnat of government interference in “intra-religious” discussions. He ignores that Saudi Arabia is a massively oil rich country that is already interfering in that “discussion”. Mr. Thames certainly does not give an alternate solution to excessive Saudi influence.
The balance of his “report” is more of the same. Mr. Thames recognizes the threats that Islamists pose to European society but takes the view that a hybrid Eurabia culture will be the inevitable result. He completely ignores the actual history of Islamic groups in Europe, their aggression and disinclination to allow the non-Muslim majority to live THEIR lives in the manner they choose.
In the end I am afraid that the CMSA has produced exactly the sort of “event” that I expected. Mt Thames is a smooth speaker who shows that he is not ignorant of any facet of the situation… the problem is that he is wearing out colors but not playing on the Western team!
I urge every moderate and conservative employee of Congress to attend the meeting:
Friday, November 13, 2009
11:00AM to 12:00PM
2456 Rayburn H.O.B.
U.S. House of Representatives
Show up, listen, think, and question.
And please, write to me and let me know what is said. Audio, video or official transcripts would be fabulous!