Why is CAIR calling you Islamophic?

Why Is CAIR Publicly Labeling Your Organization As Being Islamophobic?

What does CAIR gain by labeling you – without any real attempt at justification (see American Thinker; “Engaging Islam“) – as being Islamophobic?

Is it to intimidate you? You probably aren’t being intimidated, and CAIR knows it.

Is it to intimidate others? Perhaps. But how? If opponents and critics of Muhammadanism – what Muhammadans call “Islam” – are simply listed on a website, followed by a brief description, that isn’t much intimidation. In fact, it is free advertising. Some may smile at CAIR’s apparent naïveté.

 But the purpose may not be to defame specific organizations, but rather to do something else more generally – that is, to establish in the public mind the legitimacy of the concept of “Islamophobia.”

 If an organization that is so identified does nothing, then that classification – one that asserts the existence of an irrational fear of Muhammadanism – is unchallenged.

 If a listed organization rebuts CAIR, arguing that it is not “Islamophobic,” it is implicitly validating the legitimacy of the term “Islamophobia” – that is, “Muhammadanismophobia” – in the first place.

 Of course, a single organization can challenge the legitimacy of the classification itself, but, as a single organization, it can easily be brushed aside. But with 20 organizations, not so easily. Particularly  when CAIR has specifically named them as exemplars of “Islamophobic” organizations.

 CAIR has provided your organization with the moral standing to make such a challenge. It is provided you with the opportunity to demonstrate that the term “Islamophobia” – an irrational fear of Muhammadanism – is an invention of deceit that has no meaningful relationship with reality.


 In a May 2016 American Thinker article, “Coming to Grips with Muslim Immigration,” I argued that the presidential candidates should, prior to the televised debates, engage in the type of debate we are proposing here. (Imagine where the discussion about Muhammadanism might be now had there been such a debate.) Despite efforts, however, that didn’t happen. But having this debate — or a broad number of organization trying to have it with an organization claiming to seek dialogue and mutual understanding — could make it more possible in the future.


 I have put the possibility of the proposed debate to the American Thinker, asking if, should CAIR agree to debate, if that debate might be published (on a step-by-step approval basis) at the AT website. They wanted to see what first actually developed before giving any answer. They did not rule it out.


 For the listed organizations, the purpose of engaging in proposed debate would be to rebut the charges that CAIR has made. If, against several organizations it has named as homophobic, CAIR refuses to debate, that can accurately be seen as a tacit admission that it’s charges are in fact not defensible. (And it also puts the lie to CAIR’s claim to be interested in dialogue and mutual understanding. In the proposed debate, the only way the listed organizations can lose is if CAIR accepts the challenge and presents the better arguments.


 In a following “SIMPLIFICATION” email, I will attempt to explain how simply and how  limited in commitment that challenge may be made (which will be a simpler process than the one discussed in an email of September 21.

 (Because funds and foundations did not themselves did not engage in advocacy, I did not send them the Sept. 21 email. On reflection, I will leave the decision of whether objecting to and defending against defamation of their own organization constitutes advocacy or not.)

For free speech and democracy,

Bert PetersonOrganizations Labeled by CAIR as Islamophobic

Center for the Study of Political Islam

The Straight Way of Grace Ministry



Comments are closed.