A 'Hamas-linked gang of thugs'

“(CAIR) always howl(s) when someone exposes the truth about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism," Spencer wrote. "... (The group) consistently opposes anti-terror measures… and more. This is the group trying to dictate to (the college) on its choice of speakers, and defaming a freedom fighter in the process. Free Americans should not let this unsavory Hamas-linked gang of thugs get away with this.”

Freedom of speech was one of the reasons the college cited for hosting Ibrahim — citing the value of hearing diverse opinions.

That argument fell flat for audience member Jeff Siddiqui, who argued that Ibrahim’s talk was so inaccurate, so incomplete and so unfair that he should not have been granted a podium, or been paid a speaker fee.

“Here’s the tug of war between free speech and hate speech,” said Jeff Siddiqui, a local Pakistani American real estate agent. “Should he be allowed to be here? I say if he wants to stand here on the yard on an empty carton— more power to him. But to use public funds, to use public institutions to impact children who are paying money …  should not be allowed,”

Mr. Ibrahim received a $1,500 fee for speaking, according to the college.

Long-running battle over CAIR

The campaign to bump Ibrahim from the roster was the second protest over the college’s Islam series. The first salvo came from the other side.

When CAIR’s Bukhari was included on a panel for a session titled “Being Muslim in America” in January, activists on the other side flew into action. ACT! for America, a group based in Florida, launched a Facebook campaign urging supporters “to contact the college, educate them about CAIR’s background… and demand that the college provide an opposing viewpoint to CAIR’s.”

Opponents have been trying to sideline CAIR since 2007, when a grand jury named the group as an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case against the Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic charity charged with funding Hamas and “other terrorist organizations.” No charges were ever filed against CAIR, and a federal court removed the designation three years later, but the stigma remains. Numerous websites are dedicated to proving its association with terrorists.

“Our Facebook page was deluged with postings saying you know… ‘they are terrorists’,” said Lewis, the community college official. “’They’re going to try to convert you and when they don’t they can kill you’ — all sorts of preposterous things like that. … We started getting calls from the community. And the president started getting calls.”

Fighting the menace

While security hawks have had successes in marginalizing groups they believe to be Islamists disguised as moderates, or misguided sympathizers, Muslims are fighting back, with backing from many religious leaders and civil rights groups.

“It’s part of a broader movement among Muslim Americans to get organized politically, including voter education campaigns, voter registration, running candidates for local offices, and in general, taking on the rights and responsibilities of American citizenship,” said Kurzman, the UNC professor. “I know some people see this as troubling. I see this as part of the process of Americanization that many immigrant groups have gone through throughout history.”

In answer to websites like Jihad Watch and zoodress.com that focus on suspected Islamist extremism — activists on the other side have created publications such as Jihad Watch, Islamophobia Today, and Loon Watch to fact-check what they see as anti-Islam smears.

“There’s this sense that they are not just going to be victims,” said John Esposito, a professor of religion, international affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University. “(The attitude is) we’re going to respond and be proactive.”

A recent report by Political Research Associates, a self-described “progressive” think tank in Maine, documents what it says is a lucrative industry that peddles Islamophobia to law enforcers in federal and state agencies. The report — “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace” — warns that anti-Islam groups are teaching officers that Muslims are waging a stealth jihad in the United States, as they await the right moment to take militant action.

“Public servants are regularly presented with misleading, inflammatory, and dangerous information about the nature of the terror threat,” it said. “A vocal and influential sub-group of the private counterterrorism training industry markets conspiracy theories about secret jihadi campaigns to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law, and effectively impugns all of Islam …  as inherently violent and even terroristic.”

Former terrorist, born-again consultant

Among the subjects profiled in the report is Walid Shoebat, an American born in Jordan who converted to Christianity from Islam. He now maintains that Islam is the religion of the antichrist and the current White House occupancy of Barack Obama — “definitely a Muslim” — is evidence of the growing influence of this dark force.

Shoebat, who also claims he was a PLO terrorist as a youth and attempted to bomb a bank in Bethlehem, has parlayed his story into a thriving business as a consultant and anti-terror trainer for police and FBI agents, according to the report.

Just this week, CAIR tried to convince the South Dakota Department of Public Safety to drop its endorsement of a state Homeland Security Conference featuring Shoebat as keynote speaker.

“South Dakota taxpayers need to know whether their hard-earned dollars are helping to fund a conference that will offer anti-Muslim hate and stereotyping to law enforcement and security personnel,” wrote Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for CAIR, in a letter to South Dakota Public Safety Secretary Trevor Jones.

The speech went ahead as planned on Wednesday.

Getting past knee-jerk reactions

In Everett, college administrators besieged by protest over CAIR and Ibrahim gathered in the president’s office, said Lewis.

“Finally we decided that if we were to going to un-invite one then we were going to have to un-invite everybody,” he said. “… So we decided to keep everybody …  and keep the dialogue open.”

Nonetheless, the tone of the debate prompted the college to beef up security at the events, and allow audience members to submit their questions only in writing, “to keep things from getting out of control,” according to Lewis.

Despite the furor, Lewis said the controversy has had one silver lining.

“ dresses for party It gave me a greater sense of urgency about higher education and what it is all about,” Lewis said. “It’s about getting people to think beyond their knee-jerk reactions, and make more data-based decisions.”