ShareThis Page
Foundation head: Muslim radicals threaten ‘stealth jihad’ |

Foundation head: Muslim radicals threaten ‘stealth jihad’

| Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:00 a.m

Islamic radicals have infiltrated government, law enforcement and the entertainment industry in a “civilizational jihad” to impose Islamic law in the United States, the head of a Washington foundation said yesterday.

Steve Emerson, leader of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee are using the political process in a “stealth jihad” designed, in part, to convince people Islam is under attack.

“There’s no war against Islam any more than there’s a war against Italians because of a crackdown on the Mafia, or a war against blacks because of a crackdown against gangs, or a war against Orientals because of a crackdown on the Yakuza, or a war against Hispanics because of a crackdown on the Cali Cartel,” Emerson said in an interview with the Tribune-Review.

A spokesman for CAIR called Emerson’s criticism an attempt to marginalize Muslims.

“It’s a handy charge, because then anything any Muslim does is evidence of their nefarious intent,” CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said. “He wants to marginalize Muslims and prevent them from exercising their civil rights.”

CAIR was founded in 1994, the same year Emerson’s documentary, “Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America,” aired on PBS. Emerson said he is working on a sequel.

“We’re not stigmatizing all Muslims,” Emerson said. “We’re only describing the motivational behavior of those that carry out these attacks. And believe me, this is a small percentage of the Muslim community. But you don’t see the leadership speaking out, because the leadership is dominated by groups like CAIR.”

Hooper pointed to numerous condemnations of terrorist acts by CAIR.

Emerson said the Muslim Public Affairs Committee got Hollywood studios to submit scripts to them for review before movies go into production.

“And what does MPAC do• They strip them of any reference — negative reference — to Islam. And what do they consider a negative reference• Having an Islamic terrorist as a protagonist is number one. So popular culture is being stripped of that notion that Islamic extremism exists,” Emerson said.

Edina Lekovic, director of programming and policy for the group, called Emerson’s claim “silly” and said it “demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding” of how the movie industry works.

“We’ve consulted on projects like ‘Sleeper Cell’ on Showtime, which was certainly not a glowing portrayal of Muslims,” Lekovic said. “Our goal is to help them get it right, not get it positive.”

Emerson said it’s difficult to say how pro-democracy movements roiling the Middle East and North Africa color debate in the United States, but the movements pit U.S. interests against U.S. ideals.

“We have a quintessential dilemma between our national security interests and the issue of democracy,” Emerson said. “There’s going to be a (power) void, and the void usually is filled by those organizations that have the most money, the best organization and best message. And what is that organization• The Muslim Brotherhood.

“So my prediction here, and I could be wrong, is that within a year we will see some of these regimes de facto controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Allegheny Foundation provide funding for Emerson’s group, said a spokesman for the foundations.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.