Hamas-Linked CAIR’s Quiet Route to Power: Define the Problem, Then Become the Solution

Two recent pieces, Gregg Roman’s “How San Diego Let CAIR Define ‘Islamophobia'” at Middle East Forum and Daniel Greenfield’s “Every Muslim in Congress Demanded America Pay Reparations to Muslims for 9/11,” describe different arenas but the same method. One is municipal, the other federal. Both show an Islam-aligned advocacy group seeking recognition as the official interpreter of anti-Muslim bias, then using that status to shape policy, law enforcement, funding, and education. The label is not casual: federal prosecutors named the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing case.

The key phrase in both cases is “community groups.” It sounds harmless. Who objects to officials consulting the community? But the phrase does not say which groups are being empowered. It does not distinguish ordinary Muslims from political organizations claiming to speak for them. And it does not separate real civil rights concerns from efforts to shield Islam, Sharia, or CAIR itself from criticism.

San Diego: CAIR Writes the Definition

After the deadly attack at the Islamic Center of San Diego, the city had every reason to condemn violence and protect Muslim residents. The question was who would define “Islamophobia” for the city, and whether the public would be told who wrote the definition.

Roman’s account rests on more than 1,000 pages of email correspondence between the City of San Diego and CAIR in the wake of the shooting. According to those records, the working definition the city adopted originated with CAIR’s San Diego office. CAIR’s draft listed twelve examples of “Islamophobia.” The city adopted the first ten, in the same order, with light edits. The resolution was signed as the city’s own work, with no mention of CAIR’s role, and sent to every city department, including the police.

CAIR then described the result as a framework, and the word matters. A framework is not merely symbolic. It shapes training, priorities, and official habits of mind. It tells city employees which speech to notice, which patterns to condemn, and which organizations to consult.

The treatment of critics is just as telling. Roman reports that former CAIR insiders associated with Lori Saroya’s WeCAIR wrote to city officials with concerns about CAIR. The released records show no reply and no discussion. CAIR, by contrast, got answers within eight minutes in one case, within two hours in another, and within a day when it sought meetings. Influence of this kind requires no conspiracy. It requires only a government willing to treat one advocacy group as the authentic voice of a community while ignoring dissenters from within or around that same community.

Congress: The Jayapal Resolution

Greenfield examines H. Res. 741, a resolution from Rep. Pramila Jayapal, introduced once, September 10, 2021 H.Res. 629, and reintroduced twice, in 2023 as H.Res. 671, and most recently as H.Res. 741 in 2025, with CAIR among its endorsers. It presents itself as recognition of harms suffered by Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Sikh communities after September 11.

Its demands go well beyond commemoration. The resolution calls for an independent commission to work with “community-based organizations” to review government policies and “to dismantle those policies which continue to profile and unfairly target these communities.” The phrasing sounds like a civil-rights audit. In practice, the policies in question turn out to be counterterrorism efforts such as the terrorist watchlist.

“Whereas, to this day, Joint Terrorism Task Forces Preemptive Prosecutions, Countering Violent Extremism Programs, Suspicious Activity Reporting, Watchlists, Fusion Centers, Counterterrorism Databases, the permissive Department of Justice Racial Profiling Guidance, and other policies continue to profile and unfairly target Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, Sikh, Black, and African communities – H. Res. 741

calls for the creation of an independent commission to work with community-based organizations to review these government policies, investigate and document their impact, and provide recommendations to dismantle those policies which continue to profile and unfairly target these communities;

(5) calls for hearings by congressional and civil rights bodies to explore the findings and recommendations of this independent commission in consultation with and centering community-based organizations”

One can hear the CAIR San Diego Director use this same language in a local TV newscast.

“We want our government to invest not only in the physical security of our mosque and our institutions, but also in dismantling the condition that allow anti-Muslim hate.” – “CAIR San Diego Demands End to Elected Officials’ Anti Muslim Rhetoric That Caused San Dieg KFMB CBS8“

The resolution also supports directing resources to community-based organizations, independent of law enforcement, including programs to create alternatives to law enforcement.

“create alternatives to law enforcement and transformative justice programs that are culturally and linguistically accessible and focus on vulnerable populations within these communities, including but not limited to working class people, undocumented and immigrant communities, women, nonbinary, and LGBTQ communities; ” – H. Res. 741

That is the federal version of the San Diego problem. Who are these organizations? Who chooses them? What ideological interests do they represent? Would CAIR, as an endorser, become part of the machinery for reviewing counterterrorism policy? The resolution does not answer those questions with the precision they require. The comforting language of consultation conceals a possible transfer of authority from public institutions to advocacy groups.

The Blurred Definition

Violence, harassment, and discrimination against Muslims are real civil rights concerns. But “Islamophobia” routinely expands beyond them.

In San Diego, CAIR blamed the mosque shooting on political rhetoric, even though the available evidence did not show that the attack was inspired by the statements of the politicians CAIR blamed. Donald Trump, Andy Ogles, Randy Fine, Tommy Tuberville, and others were placed inside the causal story because they had criticized aspects of Islam, Sharia, or Muslim political activism.

That is the danger of an elastic definition. Criticism of Islam, jihad, Sharia, Islamic organizations, Muslim elected officials, counterterrorism policy, or CAIR itself can be pushed into a single moral category. Once that happens, disagreement is no longer treated as disagreement. It becomes evidence of bias.

If CAIR helps define “Islamophobia” for a city, does criticism of CAIR’s history, leaders, or role in past Hamas-related litigation fall inside or outside the definition? If a federal commission relies on “community-based organizations” that regard scrutiny of Islamic networks as bigotry, what happens to that scrutiny?

From Consultation to Control

Listening is not delegation. Government officials may consult Muslim citizens, mosque leaders, civil rights organizations, former Muslims, secular Muslims, Muslim reformers, and critics of Islamic organizations. Consultation becomes dangerous only when one advocacy network is allowed to stand in for the whole community.

Once that happens, the group gains legitimacy. It is no longer merely an organization with a point of view. It becomes the organization the government calls.

Then it gains access. Drafts, definitions, training materials, proclamations, and policy language pass through its hands before the public sees them.

Then come resources. Public money often follows official partnership, and the Jayapal resolution points toward funding community-based organizations outside law enforcement.

Then comes reach: staff, programs, school materials, public education campaigns, hate-monitoring systems, candidate pressure, and media legitimacy.

Finally comes the weapon against critics. If the same groups that face public criticism are allowed to define Islamophobia, their critics can be framed, with government’s implied approval, as examples of the problem government has promised to combat. The result is not mere prestige. It is a machine for political mobilization.

The Missing Distinction

Muslims as citizens have full civil rights. Violence, harassment, discrimination, and unequal treatment against Muslims should be condemned and punished.

But Islam is a religion and a political civilization. Islam is a political movement. CAIR is an advocacy organization. There is a difference between advocating for Muslims and representing them. Until that distinction is recognized, civil rights language will keep being used to shield groups such as CAIR from criticism.

A city can protect Muslim residents without adopting CAIR’s definition of “Islamophobia.” Congress can oppose anti-Muslim violence without empowering CAIR-endorsed groups to help dismantle counterterrorism programs. Public institutions can consult Muslims without treating Muslim Brotherhood-aligned organizations as the official voice of Muslims.

Otherwise the sequence runs its course: define “Islamophobia,” become the expert on it, advise and train government on it, receive funding to fight it, and then treat critics as examples of it. By then, the word will no longer mean hatred of Muslims. It will mean resistance to the political authority of the groups claiming to speak for them.