CAIR’s Ahmed Bedier: Pass the Bread, Reject the Bible
February 20, 2008, 9:41 pm |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
by Andrew Whitehead
In a February article in Tampa Bay Online, Karen Dunham is lauded as providing much needed resources to Palestinian refugees in camps in the Middle East. Dunham, of the Living Bread International Church, enjoys the cooperation of the Israeli armed forces and has her headquarters mission in Jerusalem, with mission outposts in Bethlehem, Jericho, and another planned for Hebron.
Dunham’s group passes out food, clothing, and Bibles to those who seek her group’s assistance.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/03/pilgrims-promise-land/
Ahmed Bedier, director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Tampa, Florida, chapter, apparently has a problem with Dunham witnessing to those she is helping with her outreach. Specifically, Bedier is troubled by Dunham’s Christian evangelizing.
According to Bedier,
“These are starving people who are not thinking rationally — they’ll do what you say to get the food to keep them alive. They’ll pray with and say they’re converted. And likely, they’ll be back at the mosque on Friday.”
Is the Muslim faith of Middle Eastern Muslims so weak that they would deny it on one day, embrace it the next? Is this an opinion Bedier has shared with Middle Eastern Muslims?
Bedier met with one of Dunham’s American volunteers before her third trip to the Middle East. Among the things Bedier gave her are a copy of the Koran and a list of “do’s and don’ts” regarding the Muslim culture.
Ahmed Bedier, the representative of a self-described “Muslim civil rights group” presumes to tell a Christian to ignore her faith when ministering to Muslims — but yet expects that same Christian to observe a list of “do’s and don’ts” when interacting with Muslims? Rank hypocrisy?
Bedier wants Dunham’s group to keep their Bibles to themselves, but sees no problem with giving a Christian volunteer a copy of the Koran. Did not Bedier think this was Islamic proselytizing? What other possible reason can there be for his giving her a copy of the Koran?
Bedier further illustrates his Christophobia:
“You have to question the motives of people who go into hostile environments to push their religion, when there’s so much that needs to be done in this country.”
Keep in mind that Dunham’s car has been bombed and her home blown up three times.
Bedier enjoys a very comfortable life in the United States. He represents CAIR, a group with proven ties to Islamic terrorism and Islamic terrorists; a group founded by Islamic terrorists, an organization that actively supports Islamic terrorists and Islamic terrorist groups; an association supported by Islamic terrorists and Islamic terrorist groups, an organization that is actively working to subvert the government of the United States with the ultimate goal of converting our country into an Islamic theocracy.
Has Bedier ever set foot in the Middle East with a bag of food, clothes, and religious material to pass out to the Palestinian people in the refugee camps? Dunham has.
Would Bedier ever give up his very comfortable life in the U.S. to live a life of danger in the Middle East in response to a higher calling? Dunham has.
What appears to have Bedier so outraged is that it took a Christian to show CAIR how real outreach works and that the works of God are definitely not the province of radical Muslims.
Dunham’s Living Bread International Church is everything CAIR is not.
No wonder Bedier is upset.
Andrew Whitehead
Director
Anti-CAIR
ajwhitehead@anti-cair-net.org
www.anti-cair-net.org
Related: Islam, Political Correctness, Christianity, Philosophy / Ideology
February 26th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Mr. Whitehead,
At times the greatest barrier to clear communication is the presence of the misunderstood word. Moreover, events, presentations, and pre-existing sentiments, can contribute greatly to the misunderstanding of another’s words. Such is the case concerning the remarks by Ahmed Bedier to the beautiful Christian humanitarian efforts of Ms. Karen Dunham, and Living Bread International Church. It is an unfortunate fact that we live in an era of such extreme culturo-religious tension. Tension, which in this particular instance may have caused the misunderstanding of Mr. Bedier’s actions, in attempting to further educate Ms. Dunham and her contemporaries during their travels throughout Palestine.
No sound minded individual who possesses human compassion would dare entertain the thought of diminishing the life-giving and life-saving actions taken by Ms. Dunham. In fact, the provision of food for the indigent and those stricken with privation is a mandate within the religion of Islam. It seems as if Mr. Bedier was attempting to reaffirm Ms. Dunham and her ministry, of both the deeply imbedded Islamic culture of the Muslim Palestinians, as well as the effects of the dire conditions of hunger which loom there.
It would fly in the face of religious history to separate the Christian experience from pious efforts of social outreach. Hector Avalos, in his book Healthcare and the Rise of Christianity, explains with great detail how even the early Jerusalemic church was committed to meeting the needs of the disadvantaged. It is however, an Islamic societal norm of etiquette to equip someone traveling to a land outside of their origin with tools that may be of some benefit to the traveler. Mr. Bedier’s list of what is and is not considered appropriate behavior in Palestine was simply a cultural expression of good faith.
In Islamic tradition, as with many others throughout the world, the concept of charity is extremely important. A concise synopsis of charity’s Islamic comprehension will reflect the age-old adage of, “Charity begins at home, and subsequently spreads abroad”. This is the reasoning behind Mr. Bedier’s question of the methods taken by Living Bread International Church. The gospel according to St. Matthew, seventh chapter, fifth verse, quotes Jesus (Peace Be upon Him) as charging those who overlook the plank in their own eye to correct the splinter in the eye of their brother with hypocrisy. Mr. Bedier’s statements requested that critical thought be given to issues of poverty, hunger, and need for Biblical apprehension and comprehension, domestically.
Both The Holy Bible and The Holy Qur’an teach humanity that there is an inevitable Reality called Justice. Both the religions of Christianity and Islam assert that nothing and no one are out of the reach of Divine Justice; for it is Divine Justice that maintains the balance consistent in every part of the universal order of Nature. The heinous acts of terrorism committed by criminals and their compatriots while posing as Muslims, and the despicable and cowardly acts done to Ms. Dunham will be requited by the same God. Justice will come to all who support terror as well as all who carry it out. Moreover, The Council on American Islamic Relations is sure to be duly punished should wrongdoing be found within its ranks and its operations.
As a Muslim American, it is wonderful to hear another outside of the Islamic faith tradition share an aspect of Islam. You mentioned the gallant and admirable efforts of Ms. Dunham as being demonstrative of an active Christ-inspired striving to help her fellow man. The Qur’an states, “To each is a goal, to which Allah (God) turns him; then strive as in a race, all together, towards all that is good.” As Americans, whose religion of choice is Islam; we pray that The Almighty reward the sacrifice of individuals committed to doing good works. It is our sincerest desire to see all of those dedicated to right, receive the best in this world’s life; as well as the best in the hereafter.
Donnie Ali
donnieibnmalikali@yahoo.com
February 29th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
The fact is that CAIR is an Islamist group, Islamist-funded, and a supporter of Islamist terrorism: Half of CAIR’s leadership is either indicted or serving jail time on terrorist-related charges.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:27 am
My Dearest Publisher,
If you would be so kind as to explain to both myself, as well as other religious lay persons, exactly how you define Islamist? Moreover, will you compare and contrast your definitions of “Islamist” and “Islamic”, if such a comparison or contrast can be made?
It seems as if we live in a world replete with various shades of meanings attached to rather common terms. Terms such as conservative, liberal, and freedom. I have read many statements and opinions containing the word “Islamic” and “Islamist”, and have researched the standard definition of the terms. Both definitions explain clearly to the inquirer, that neither term denotes the practice of criminal behavior or the support of criminality. However, if there is an additional definition of “Islamist” or “Islamic” available, then for the benefit of scholarship, it should be clearly stated.
Trust Publisher, that it is not in any way, shape, or form, my desire to volley aimless rhetoric without a clearly delineated purpose. I have devoted my time, patience, and energy to scholarly discussions within academia. I simply ask in this particular case that if there is an alternative definition for standardized terms, it be stated when using the terms. If there is not an alternative definition, then a scholarly antecedent should be used such as “false Islamic” or “pseudo-Islamist”. That is, if it is the desire of the Publisher to be academically non-discriminatory.
I sincerely believe that it is.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Donnie I. Ali
March 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Here’s a succinct definition of “Islamist,” as distinguished from “Islamic.”
I noticed you completely disregarding the facts I presented that CAIR’s leadership has been proven by law to be intimately linked to terrorism. CAIR fits the Islamist definition, while true moderates like Benazir Bhutto fit the term Islamic.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Honorable Publisher,
I sincerely apologize if it appeared as if the time was not taken to read or consider the points you presented regarding CAIR’s leadership. Not only was your response read in its completion, it was also thoroughly and quantitatively researched. It must be admitted, that your point of view regarding the criminal foundations of CAIR is a position of much controversy. Mainly, due to the fact that numerous local, state and federal legislators have by written record, have supported CAIR and its stated mission. It would be a rather unfortunate truth, to tax-paying citizens, that their elected officials are aligned with foreign and domestic terrorism. It, in like manner, would not speak highly to the intelligence of elected officials, responsible for ensuring the political safety of the American people.
Publisher, the ambiguity of your association of the stated mission of CAIR with the term “Islamist” was rather puzzling. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) stated mission, “is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.” Upon close securitization of this mission statement, there seems to be very little difference between it and that of the vast majority of American Civil Rights organizations. Organizations such as the NAACP, Anti Defamation League, and with all honesty, Anti-CAIR. It would seem rather anomalous to refer to the ADL or NAACP as “Islamist” or “intimately linked” terrorist organizations.
It was very surprising to read that Benazir Bhutto (may God be pleased with her) was the individual selected to represent “Islamic” principles. Perhaps your method of reasoning is alien to the scores of her own Pakistani constituents who were greatly dissatisfied with former Prime Minister Bhutto’s documented national and international graft.In fact, it was Prime Minister Bhutto’s Pakistani government, in conjunction with the United States, which provided the bulk of the financial support of the now infamous Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It goes without saying that the countless horrors and injustices committed to Afghan citizens under Taliban governmental leadership were far from the textbook or Qur’anic definition of Islam. Would Prime Minister Bhutto and U.S. President William Clinton be considered “Islamist” due to their “intimate” linkage to Taliban leaders and officials? Should the Central Intelligence Agency be classified as an “Islamist” organization due to its “intimate” linkage to Osama bin Laden’s Mu’jahideen via Operation Cyclone? Publisher, if the “Islamist” definition coined by you for CAIR is indeed universally applicable, many legitimate and necessary organizations associated with criminals fraudulently operating under the guise of Islam are, in like manner, “Islamist”.
Perhaps, criminal organizations are best designated as just that, criminal. Moreover, if CAIR collectively is a criminal organization, why has the justice department sat idly by and allowed for such criminal behavior to ensue? Could it be something else about The Council on American Islamic relations that kindles our disdain for its existence?
Please, do explain.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Donnie I. Ali
March 6th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
If Bhutto were so unpopular, as you say, then why did her party “finish first in last month’s elections” in Pakistan? In fact, again quoting USAToday, “Moderate, secular parties routed Islamists…” and the People’s Party is moderate. I believe Bhutto was moderate in her religious outlook.
As for CAIR, you’re not going to convince me that they’re not a bunch of creeps. The Justice Dept. has been keeping its eye on CAIR — most recently re: the Holy Land Foundation trial (“evidence was introduced clearly demonstrating the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) involvement with the HLF in financing the terrorist group Hamas”). There have been other times, too. Here is CAIR’s lovely history:
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) stated that CAIR’s leaders have “intimate links with Hamas” and that “we know CAIR has ties to terrorism.” Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called CAIR “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.”
Nihad Awad, CAIR’s executive director and co-founder, exclaimed, “I am in support of the Hamas movement.” Hamas is committed to the genocide of Israelis.
CAIR’s founder, Omar Ahmad, stated, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
Former CAIR member Randall Royer is now serving 20 years in prison on terrorism and weapons charges. CAIR’s Texas chapter founder, Ghassan Elashi, was convicted twice for involvement with Hamas. Bassem Khafagi, CAIR’s onetime community relations director, plead guilty for falsifying his visa application and passing bad checks, and was deported. Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was arrested and deported on terrorism charges. Siraj Wahhaj, once a member of CAIR’s advisory board, was named an unindicted co-conspirator in an attempt to blow up New York City monuments.
See here and here for references, including Justice Dept links.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Publisher,
The question of Benazir Bhutto’s popularity can go without asking. Former Prime Minister Bhutto (may God be pleased with her) was a very charismatic figure, and was an equally gifted and brilliant politician. However, while being popular, she also possessed the well documented guilt of corruption in Switzerland, Poland, France, The United Arab Emirates, Iran, and other portions of Western Asia. If being a multinational thief qualifies one as a religious “moderate”, former Prime Minister Bhutto was the poster-child for temperance. Unfortunately, like so many other politicians, Benazir Bhutto was a manifest criminal. Moreover, the Pakistani government, under her control, was undeniably a chief financer of the brutally extreme Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The word “creep” is an extremely subjective term. While it is mutually agreed that the probability of presenting a novel perspective is unlikely to change the one you currently possess; let us reason together on the basis of Truth. Byron De La Beckwith, the Ku Klux Klan member charged with the murder of Civil Rights worker Medgar Evers, considered the NAACP to be a bunch of “creeps”. Adolph Hitler, and his supporting government, felt that innocent Jewish citizens of Europe were such “creeps” that he oversaw the systematic and diabolical murder of over six million of them. Josef Stalin, Francisco Franco, Mao Zedong, all considered individuals and groups which possessed ideas different from theirs, to be a “bunch of creeps”. As intellectuals, we must be sure to guard our ideologies against being in the company of the nefarious men of the above said.
Senator Schumer and Senator Durban have a responsibility to act on behalf of their constituents. If CAIR as a whole is a threat to National Security, and they have not acted to dismantle CAIR, then it must be concluded that they have no causative right to undertake such action.
It is never morally just to support, condone, or endorse any form of genocide. Not only is it thoroughly against the Qur’an, but it is also completely illogical to violently force anything into extinction. Anyone claiming to be a Muslim and advocating such genocidal action, speaks outside of Islam to the same degree that the Knights of the White Kamelia of the Ku Klux Klan speak of outside of Christianity.
Contrary to many views, the Holy Qur’an strictly forbids compulsion to Religion.
(Qur’an2:256) Islam does not require that its adherents become a majority in America. Similarly, the Qur’an did not require that Islam become the majority persuasion in predominately Christian Ethiopia during the 7th Century. The Qur’an does not assert itself to become the dominant opinion in predominately Buddhist China today. What the Holy Qur’an requires is that the Muslim respects secular legal authority as long as that authority does not compel the Muslim to disobey the moral law of God. Any and all criminal activity is an expressed representation of the individual, and not that of the group to which the individual claims to belong.
If the department of justice has arrested the violators of law mentioned in the afore written article, then why continue to label an organization as foul, when the guilty parties have from it been purged? Should other state leaders label the American government as foul because of the criminal actions of former Vice President Chief of Staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby? Should state leaders label America as being foul for its support of brutal Dictators such as Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Augusto Pinochet, and Pervez Musharraf? It can be assumed with safety, that such labeling would be utterly irrational.
The Council on American Islamic Relations has clearly stated its mission and its aims. A non-biased analysis of that mission, and those aims should be the yardstick by which CAIR is measured.
That is Publisher, if it is our intention to be fair.
Is that not at all reasonable?
Donnie I. Ali