CAIR’s Hypocritical Outrage Over Sec Def Pete Hegseth’s ‘Kafir’ Tattoo: A Smokescreen for Islam’s Violent Legacy

Unveiling CAIR’s Desperate Deflection from Islam’s Bloodstained History of Jihad and Terror

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has launched a scathing attack on U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth over his new tattoo of the Arabic word "kafir," meaning "infidel" or "nonbeliever," in a post on X dated March 27, 2025. 

CAIR claims the tattoo is a "sign of not only anti-Muslim hostility, but remarkable personal insecurity," accusing Hegseth of being obsessed with Islam and glorifying the Crusades, which they label as genocidal. They further assert that Muslims don’t tattoo themselves with anti-Christian messages because they are "secure in their own faith" and "respect the beliefs of their neighbors." CAIR’s statement reeks of hypocrisy, historical revisionism, and a deliberate attempt to deflect from Islam’s own troubling legacy of violence, intolerance, and supremacist ideology as enshrined in its texts. Let’s dismantle their claims piece by piece, exposing the facts they conveniently ignore while reminding readers of the decades-long shadow Islam has cast through terrorism, jihad, and a doctrine that explicitly calls for violence against Christians and Jews.

CAIR’s Claim: The ‘Kafir’ Tattoo Signals Anti-Muslim Hostility and Insecurity

CAIR’s assertion that Hegseth’s tattoo of "kafir" reflects anti-Muslim hostility and personal insecurity is a gross overreach. The term "kafir" is indeed Arabic for "infidel" or "nonbeliever," a label used in the Quran to describe those who reject Islam, often with derogatory connotations. 

For example: 

• Beheaded- 47:4 When you encounter the kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thor-oughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

• The Koran defines the kafir and says that the kafir is hated (40:35), mocked (83:34), punished (25:77), beheaded (47:4), confused (6:25), plotted against (86:15), terrorized (8:12), annihilated (6:45), killed (4:91), crucified (5:33), made war on (9:29), ignorant (6:111), evil (23:97), disgraced (37:18), cursed (33:60), stolen from (Bukhari 5,59,537), raped (Ishaq 759) and a Muslim is not the friend of a kafir (3:28).

• "Erdogan’s words" demonstrate not only his complete intolerance for criticism and free speech, but also his hatred for non-Muslims, which Islamic scriptures refer to as “kafirs.”This was not the first time Erdogan publicly used the term “kafir.” On October 25, 2019, at another public event, Erdogan again used the term and openly incited violence against non-Muslims. During the Friday prayers at the Great Çamlıca Mosque in Istanbul, he told the congregants: Our God commands us to be violent towards the kuffar [infidels]. Who are we? The ummah [nation] of Mohammed. So [God] also commands us to be merciful to each other. So we will be merciful to each other. And we will be violent to the kuffar. Like in Syria."

Branding Jews and Christians who do not adhere to Islamic law as "kafir," a term of exclusion and condemnation. Hegseth, a devout Christian and military veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is reclaiming a term that has been weaponized against non-Muslims, particularly by jihadist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, who use it to justify violence against "infidels." 

X user @BrotherRasheed,Many Arabic platforms are making a big deal about the tattoo on the arm of U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth @PeteHegseth, which features the word Kafir—a term Muslims use to refer to non-Muslims, often in a derogatory manner. However, this word is widely recognized among military veterans, especially those who served in the Middle East, as a symbol of defiance against Islamic terrorists. It’s commonly seen on stickers, the backs of trucks, T-shirts, and mugs. Personally, I had it on a hat, a mug, and even on the door of my office.

CAIR’s claim of "personal insecurity" is a cheap psychological jab with no evidence. Hegseth’s tattoos, including the "kafir" ink and his "Deus Vult" (Latin for "God Wills It") tattoo, reflect his Christian faith and military background, not an obsession with Islam. Hegseth has over a dozen tattoos, many of which, like the Jerusalem Cross on his chest, symbolize his Christian identity and patriotism. If anything, CAIR’s fixation on Hegseth’s body art suggests they are the ones with an insecurity problem, unable to handle a non-Muslim proudly asserting his identity in the face of a term Islam itself uses to dehumanize others.

CAIR’s Claim: Hegseth’s Tattoo Glorifies the ‘Failed Crusaders’ and Their ‘Genocidal Acts’

CAIR attempts to smear Hegseth by linking his "Deus Vult" tattoo to the Crusades, which they describe as "genocidal acts of violence against Jews, Muslims, and even fellow Christians centuries ago." While the Crusades (1095–1291) were indeed marked by violence, including the 1099 massacre in Jerusalem where Crusaders killed Muslims, Jews, and Eastern Christians, CAIR’s narrative is a one-sided distortion. The Crusades were a response to centuries of Islamic aggression, including the conquest of Christian lands in the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain, starting with Muhammad’s campaigns in the 7th century. By the 11th century, Muslim forces had captured Jerusalem, a holy city for Christians, and were harassing pilgrims. The First Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in 1095 to reclaim these territories and protect Christian populations, not to commit genocide (Madden,2005, The New Concise History of the Crusades).

CAIR conveniently ignores Islam’s own history of violence during this period. The Islamic conquests from 632 to 732 saw the rapid expansion of Muslim rule through military campaigns that subjugated Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians, often forcing them to convert, pay the jizya tax, or face death. 

The Quran itself endorses such violence in Surah 9:29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture [Christians and Jews]—[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled." This verse explicitly calls for violence against Christians and Jews unless they submit to Islamic dominance. CAIR’s attempt to paint the Crusades as uniquely genocidal while ignoring Islam’s own history of conquest and violence is intellectually dishonest.

CAIR’s Claim: Muslims Don’t Tattoo Opposition to Other Religions Because They’re ‘Secure’ and ‘Respectful’

CAIR’s assertion that Muslims don’t tattoo themselves with anti-Christian messages because they are "secure in their own faith" and "respect the beliefs of their neighbors" is laughable given Islam’s historical and doctrinal stance toward other religions. The Quran and Hadith are replete with commands to fight and kill non-Muslims, particularly Christians and Jews. Surah 9:5, known as the "Verse of the Sword," states, "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush." While this verse primarily targets polytheists, Islamic scholars like Ibn Kathir have interpreted it to include Christians and Jews who reject Islam (Tafsir Ibn Kathir). The Hadith also fuels this hostility. Sahih Muslim (Book 41, Hadith 6985) quotes Muhammad saying, "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him."

This doctrine has manifested in centuries of violence, from the early Islamic conquests to modern-day jihadist terrorism. The 21st century alone has seen countless attacks by groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram, who often call themselves "martyrs" for dying in the name of jihad. The 9/11 attacks in 2001, carried out by Al-Qaeda, killed nearly 3,000 people in the name of Islam. ISIS’s campaign in Iraq and Syria from 2014 onward saw the genocide of Yazidis, the enslavement of women, and the beheading of Christians, all justified by their interpretation of Islamic texts (Wood, 2015, The Atlantic). CAIR’s claim of "respect" for other beliefs is undermined by this legacy of violence and the explicit intolerance in Islamic scripture, which continues to inspire terrorism today.

As for tattoos, CAIR notes that "most Muslims do not wear tattoos for religious reasons," citing Islamic teachings that discourage body modification (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 77, Hadith 594). Yet, their implication that this reflects moral superiority is absurd. Hegseth’s tattoo is a personal expression of his identity, not a call to violence, unlike the Quran’s commands to kill non-believers. CAIR’s attempt to shame Hegseth for his tattoo while ignoring Islam’s own history of hostility toward other faiths is a blatant double standard.

CAIR’s Claim: Hegseth Should Consider American Muslims in the Military and Population

CAIR’s final point—that Hegseth should "keep in mind that he leads the U.S. armed forces, which includes thousands of American Muslims, and that he is sworn to defend the American people, who include millions of American Muslims"—is a veiled threat, implying that Hegseth’s tattoo makes him unfit to lead. This is a manipulative tactic to silence criticism of Islam by invoking the presence of Muslims in the U.S. Hegseth’s tattoo does not target American Muslims; it is a symbol of defiance against the jihadist ideology that has killed thousands of Americans and others worldwide. As Secretary of Defense, Hegseth has made counterterrorism a priority, focusing on groups like the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who have attacked U.S. interests (The Guardian, 2025). His tattoo reflects his resolve to confront this threat, not to discriminate against Muslim Americans.

Moreover, CAIR’s own history raises questions about its credibility to lecture on American values. CAIR has been criticized for its ties to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial, which uncovered funding networks for Hamas (U.S. Department of Justice, 2008). While CAIR denies these allegations, its history of defending controversial figures and causes, including opposition to Hegseth’s nomination over his past statements on Islam, suggests an agenda more aligned with protecting Islamist interests than promoting genuine interfaith harmony (CAIR, 2025).

CAIR’s Disrespectful Tone on X

CAIR’s X post on March 27, 2025, doesn’t even address Hegseth with his proper title, referring to him as "Pete Hegseth" rather than "Secretary of Defense Hegseth," a subtle but telling sign of disrespect for his position (CAIR National, 2025). This lack of decorum from an organization claiming to champion "respect" further undermines their moral posturing. If CAIR truly valued respect, they would address Hegseth appropriately while engaging in substantive dialogue, not name-calling and character assassination.

Conclusion: CAIR’s Outrage Is a Distraction from Islam’s Violent Legacy

CAIR’s attack on Pete Hegseth’s "kafir" tattoo is a hypocritical attempt to paint him as an Islamophobe while ignoring Islam’s own history of violence, intolerance, and supremacist ideology. The Quran and Hadith explicitly call for violence against Christians and Jews, a doctrine that has fueled centuries of conquest and modern-day terrorism by groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, who proudly call themselves "martyrs" for their jihad. Hegseth’s tattoo is a personal expression of defiance against this ideology, not an attack on American Muslims. CAIR’s outrage is a distraction, a way to silence criticism of Islam while projecting a false image of victimhood. It’s time to hold CAIR accountable for its double standards and confront the real threat: the extremist ideology that continues to inspire violence in the name of Islam.

Follow me on X All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. -Galileo

Disclaimer & Sources, this article reflects sentiment and opinions, not necessarily facts. Sources, links, and views may not represent the author’s personal stance. and nothing in this article should be interpreted as such and or advice, legal advice. You have read the article and by reading the article you came to your own conclusions and used your own thoughts.

If you spot an error, please contact me promptly to correct it. ellenniedz@gmail.com rights of logos placed here are for recognition for the blind or eyesight problems on this blog. 😎 Be sure to click on all the Blue Links.

Sources:

• CAIR National X Post, March 27, 2025: https://t.co/lmtK0QKnc0
• TRT Global, "After Signalgate, Hegseth sparks uproar with 'Kafir' (infidel) tattoo on arm," March 28, 2025: trt.global
• The Daily Beast, "Pete Hegseth Sparks Outrage With Wild New Arabic Tattoo," March 28, 2025: www.thedailybeast.com
• The Guardian, "Pete Hegseth’s Arabic tattoo stirs controversy: ‘clear symbol of Islamophobia’," March 27, 2025: www.theguardian.com
• Madden, Thomas F., The New Concise History of the Crusades, 2005.
• Wood, Graeme, "What ISIS Really Wants," The Atlantic, 2015.
• U.S. Department of Justice, Holy Land Foundation Trial Documents, 2008.
• Quran and Hadith translations from Sahih International and Sahih Muslim.

Targeted for Freedom - Life Ruined: Thaddeus Billman’s Battle - CAIR-Ohio’s Assault on Free Speech – Part 2

Targeted for Freedom: Thaddeus Billman’s Battle - CAIR-Ohio’s Assault on Free Speech – Part 2

Life Ruined.

On March 14, 2025, The Columbus Dispatch doubled down on its witch hunt against Thaddeus Billman with a follow-up hit piece titled, “CAIR-Ohio: Columbus shelter board should fire employee who posted anti-Muslim YouTube videos,” amplifying the venomous rhetoric of the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Ohio (CAIR-Ohio) and its executive director, Khalid Turaani. Just one day after their initial article sparked a firestorm, The Dispatch and CAIR-Ohio escalated their assault, demanding Billman’s head on a platter for his YouTube channel “Reasoned Answers.” Their accusations drip with bias, innuendo, and a reckless disregard for truth—hallmarks of defamation under Ohio law. Billman, a Christian apologist and data analyst unjustly axed from the Community Shelter Board (CSB), stands as a testament to America’s embattled free speech rights, facing a coordinated effort to ruin his livelihood over opinions expressed outside his workplace. This isn’t justice—it’s a lynching dressed up as moral outrage, with CAIR-Ohio deliberately targeting him for his views.

The Dispatch and CAIR’s Biased Barrage

The Dispatch’s March 14 article leans heavily on CAIR-Ohio’s inflammatory claims, starting with Turaani’s assertion: “Billman’s role in a community nonprofit serving Muslims, among others, should alarm us all—proof that hate thrives even in well-intentioned spaces.” This is a textbook smear—vague, unsubstantiated, and designed to imply guilt without evidence. CAIR-Ohio zeroed in on Billman, cherry-picking his YouTube content, including his interview with historian Robert Spencer, to paint him as a threat, despite no concrete link to workplace misconduct. Billman’s role at CSB—crunching numbers, ensuring data integrity, and submitting reports—has no nexus to his personal views. Yet Turaani and The Dispatch paint him as a ticking time bomb, a bigot lurking in plain sight. How does this accusation hold up? It’s a flimsy house of cards, built on assumption, not fact, revealing CAIR’s calculated targeting of a man who dared to speak his mind.

Turaani doubles down, claiming, “For such a well-regarded organization in the Columbus area to have a person peddling hate in such a way that it’s creating a platform for a very well-known racist is simply unacceptable.” Calling Spencer, a scholar who’s briefed the FBI and U.S. military, a “very well-known racist” is a cheap shot, not a fact. Billman’s admiration for Spencer—a man with a robust academic record—doesn’t make him a hate-monger. It’s a personal opinion, protected under the First Amendment, not a fireable offense. The Dispatch regurgitates Turaani’s overblown hyperbole without skepticism, despite Billman’s prior statement to them: “My private views, or YouTube views, are not relevant to my job,” and “Any views I hold do not impact the work that I do.” Though he couldn’t be reached for further comment on this story, his stance remains crystal clear. CAIR-Ohio’s targeting here is blatant—punishing Billman not for actions, but for associations they deem unacceptable.

Shredding CAIR’s Sanctimonious Nonsense

CAIR-Ohio’s press release, quoted by The Dispatch, takes the cake for audacity: “Employees who project bigoted ideologies—especially on social media—cannot be trusted to act with integrity in their work,” Turaani declares. Let’s rip this apart. First, “bigoted ideologies” is a subjective smear, not a legal standard. Billman’s videos critique Islam from a Christian perspective—crude at times, sure, but free speech doesn’t require politeness. The Supreme Court in Cohen v. California (1971) upheld the right to offensive speech, ruling that “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” Billman’s words, however provocative, are his constitutional right, exercised off-duty, with no shown impact on his job. CAIR-Ohio targeted him anyway, twisting his personal expression into a professional indictment without proof.

Second, “cannot be trusted to act with integrity” is pure conjecture—defamation dressed as concern. Under Ohio law, defamation requires a false statement of fact made with actual malice—reckless disregard for the truth (Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 1990). Turaani has no evidence Billman’s views compromised his work. He’s guessing, and The Dispatch ran with it, amplifying a lie that’s cost Billman his career. Third, “the line between free speech and hate speech is increasingly blurred” is Turaani’s dodge to silence dissent. There’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment (Snyder v. Phelps, 2011)—a fact CAIR conveniently ignores while crying victim. This isn’t blurred; it’s Billman’s right, plain and simple. CAIR’s relentless targeting hinges on vilifying his speech, not his deeds.

Turaani’s follow-up is even worse: “Islamophobia and hate are rising, not fading, as minorities face relentless attacks… From Springfield to DEI suppression, it’s all connected.” This is a masterclass in bad faith. “Islamophobia” is a loaded term, not a legal category, flung at Billman to shut him up. His channel debates religion—hardly a “relentless attack” on anyone. Linking him to unrelated issues like Springfield or DEI is a desperate stretch, lumping him into a grand conspiracy with zero proof. CAIR’s tactic here is clear: smear, exaggerate, and suppress, targeting Billman as a scapegoat for their broader agenda.

CAIR’s Dirty Laundry: Lawsuits and Speech Suppression

CAIR-Ohio’s sanctimony is laughable given its own track record. Nationally, CAIR has initiated or been involved in frivolous lawsuits since its founding in 1994, often targeting critics of Islam or its own actions. In 2005, CAIR sued Andrew Whitehead for calling it an “Islamist hate group” on his Anti-CAIR website; the case settled after CAIR dropped it, unable to prove falsehood. In 2016, CAIR sued Florida gun range owner Robert Hall for banning Muslims, claiming discrimination—yet lost when courts upheld his free exercise rights. CAIR’s Ohio chapter joined the fray in 2021, firing its own director, Romin Iqbal, for allegedly spying for an anti-Muslim group, exposing internal rot while crying “Islamophobia” elsewhere. This is an outfit that thrives on litigation and intimidation, not integrity—precisely the kind of group that would unjustly target Billman for his YouTube channel.

CAIR’s obsession with silencing speech is well-documented. Its 2021 “Islamophobia Report” demanded social media censor “anti-Muslim content,” a blatant attack on free expression. Turaani’s call to fire Billman fits this pattern—punish thought, not action. Compare this to Billman, who’s never sued to shut anyone up. His “crime”? Talking about religion online. CAIR’s hypocrisy is staggering, and their targeting of Billman is a textbook example of their playbook: attack, defame, and destroy.

CSB’s Legal Blunders and Bad Faith

CSB’s response is a masterclass in cowardice and potential illegality. Spokeswoman Níel Jurist told The Dispatch that Billman’s claim of being cleared “may give the impression” of a formal review, insisting the matter is “still under investigation.” Why is a nonprofit blabbing to the press about an employee’s private life during an “ongoing investigation”? This reeks of retaliation and defamation. In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. (2000), the Supreme Court ruled employers can’t justify firing without job-related evidence—CSB has none, just vague “concerns.” Speaking to The Dispatch mid-investigation also risks violating Ohio’s employment laws against public disparagement (Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 2006).

Who tipped off CAIR-Ohio to weigh in? Was it CSB, leaking to an advocacy group mid-probe? Or The Dispatch, fishing for a juicy quote? Either way, it’s a red flag—collusion to smear Billman before due process. CSB’s sanctimonious “we support all communities” line is hollow when they’ve torched Billman’s rights without proof, amplifying CAIR’s unjust targeting with their own spineless complicity.

Defending Thaddeus: America’s Free Speech Champion

Thaddeus Billman isn’t just a data analyst—he’s a warrior for the First Amendment. His YouTube channel, however brash, is his right as an American. Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) protects public employees’ speech on public matters unless it disrupts work—CSB hasn’t shown a shred of disruption. Billman’s insistence that “any views I hold do not impact the work that I do” is unassailable. He didn’t infringe on anyone’s rights; CAIR and CSB infringed on his, targeting him for exercising his freedom.

Khalid Turaani’s baseless attacks don’t hold a candle to Billman’s legal footing. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) bars religious discrimination—firing Billman for his Christian views could violate it. Ohio’s at-will employment doesn’t excuse retaliation or defamation, and CSB’s public statements flirt with both. Billman could sue for wrongful termination, defamation, and First Amendment retaliation—grounds as solid as steel.

The Real Villains

Call Billman “Islamophobic”? Rubbish. He debates ideas, not people. CAIR’s the one peddling fear, suing critics into silence while dodging its own scandals, targeting Billman as their latest victim. CSB’s the one breaking trust, airing dirty laundry to dodge accountability. The Dispatch? A megaphone for malice, not truth. Thaddeus Billman’s fight isn’t just his—it’s ours. The battle for justice roars on.