Media rife with anti-Muslim rhetoric in weeks leading up to 9-11 anniversary
As the nation prepares to mark the ninth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, numerous media figures have propagated anti-Muslim rhetoric, often smearing Muslims as "terrorists," "jihadists," and "extremists," and dismissing Islam altogether as a "militant" and "anti-Semitic" faith.
Media display anti-Muslim bigotry in recent weeks
Geller: "[A]nti-semitism is a basic tenet of Islam." In a September 8 blog post, Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller quoted Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's statement that "[t]he very word 'islam' comes from a word cognate to shalom, which means peace in Hebrew." Geller wrote: "Considering that Islamic anti-semitism is a basic tenet of Islam. This is particularly disgusting. Talk about giving us the middle finger."
Peretz questions whether Muslims "are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment." In a September 4 New Republic column, editor-in-chief Martin Peretz wrote that an "intense epidemic of slaughter [in the Islamic world] has been going on for nearly a decade and a half ... without protest, without anything. And it has been going for decades and centuries before that." Peretz then asked, "Why do not Muslims raise their voices against these at once planned and random killings all over the Islamic world?" He continued:
But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.
Buchanan: "[A] Western nation that opens its doors to mass migration from the Islamic world is taking a grave risk with its unity and identity." In an August 24 column, Pat Buchanan defended prejudice against Muslims by stating that while there are millions of "decent, peace-loving Muslims," "one would have to be obtuse not to understand that a Western nation that opens its doors to mass migration from the Islamic world is taking a grave risk with its unity and identity." Buchanan further stated:
This is not an argument for war with Islam, but for recognition that "East is East and West is West" and America cannot absorb and assimilate all the creeds of mankind without ceasing to be who we are.
Prejudice is prejudgment. And if prejudgment is rooted in the history and traditions of a people, and what life has taught us, it is a shield that protects. Only a fool would reject the inherited wisdom of his kind because it fails to comport with the ideology of the moment.
Franklin Graham: "True Islam" can't be practiced in U.S. because "you cannot beat your wife, you cannot do honor killing." On the August 19 broadcast of CNN's John King USA, Franklin Graham repeated his frequent attacks on Islam, claiming: "Remember, true Islam cannot be practiced here in this country. You cannot beat your wife. You cannot do honor killing if you think your daughter has misbehaved. You cannot kill her. And they're protected by the laws of this country. We're not under Sharia law. We're under the Constitution of the United States. And so we're protected."
Buchanan: Islam "is a militant faith." In an August 17 column about Obama's comments on the proposed Islamic center in New York, Buchanan wrote: "Islam is a rising faith, the largest on earth, with 1.5 billion adherents. It is a militant faith that believes it will one day encompass all mankind." He further claimed:
Where it has become the dominant faith, it has been intolerant of rivals, especially Christianity, the faith of the Crusaders.
By no means are all or most Muslims fanatics of the Osama bin Laden variety, but many are uncompromising in their belief that, once their faith becomes the majority faith in a community or society, Muslims should write the rules and Muslims should make the laws.
And if Americans believe that Islam is consistent with pluralism, ecumenism and a belief in the equality of all religions and all lifestyles, we are headed for what the Chinese call "interesting times."
Gingrich compares Islamic center to Nazis erecting sign near Holocaust museum, Japanese site near Pearl Harbor. On the August 16 edition of Fox & Friends, Newt Gingrich said: "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center."
Nugent: "The mosque will attract extremists and radicals who will try to harm America." In an August 19 Washington Times op-ed attacking Park51, Ted Nugent wrote that "[t]he mosque will attract extremists and radicals who will try to harm America." Nugent repeatedly referred to Islam as a "voodoo religion" and concluded, "If additional American blood is spilled in the Big Apple, the politicians who supported this mosque will be as guilty as the Muslim voodoo kooks who love death and destruction in the name of Allah."
Cal Thomas repeatedly suggests Park51 would be a terrorist front. In an August 3 column, conservative commentator Cal Thomas wrote: "Ask yourself: if you wanted to infiltrate a country, wouldn't a grand strategy be to rapidly build mosques from Ground Zero in New York, to Temecula, Calif., and establish beachheads so fanatics could plan and advance their strategies under the cover of religious freedom and that great American virtue known as 'tolerance,' which is being used against us?" In a July 21 post on The Washington Post's On Faith blog, Thomas wrote:
A mosque near Ground Zero is not about tolerance, but triumphalism. It isn't about honoring the dead, but celebrating their deaths.
[...]
Don't we know why our enemies desire a beachhead in America? They wish to launch new terror attacks and forcibly convert Americans to their way of thinking and believing. What will we gain by allowing this to happen?
Morris: Park 51 will be used to "train and recruit Sharia law advocates who become terrorists." On the August 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Dick Morris cited a study that he claimed said "80 percent of the mosques ... teach Sharia law as the main event." Morris later claimed that Park 51 will be used to "study and promote and train and recruit Sharia law advocates, which, who become terrorists." In his August 18 column, Morris wrote, "The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be -- as many mosques throughout the nation are -- a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center." Morris also stated, "There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia Law and will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west."
Morris: "[T]hese Sharia mosques ... have become the command center for terrorists," and Park51 "would be, too." On the August 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, during a discussion of Park51, Morris claimed that "these Sharia mosques ... have become the command centers for terrorists," adding, "so this one would be, too."
Bolling: Park51 "may be a meeting place for some of the scariest minds -- some of the biggest terrorist minds." On the August 19 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Eric Bolling claimed that Park51 "may be a meeting place for some of the scariest minds -- some of the biggest terrorist minds."
Kilmeade: "The next Hamburg cell could be right downtown." During the discussion with Bolling on the August 19 Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said of Park51, "The next Hamburg cell could be right downtown." A terrorist cell in Hamburg, Germany -- whose members would later become the 9-11 hijackers -- is believed to be the origin of the 9-11 plot.
Limbaugh suggests Park51 would be a "recruiting tool for domestic extremists." On the August 3 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated that if the Guantanamo Bay detention center "is a recruiting tool for foreign extremists, what about a World Trade Center mosque being a recruiting tool for domestic extremists?"
Fox guest suggests Islamic cultural center is intended to "trumpet" Muslim conquest. On the August 16 edition of Fox & Friends, guest Jeanine Pirro -- former Republican candidate for New York state attorney general -- said, "I think the whole idea of the mosque is outrageous, and if you're a student of history, you know that mosques are often built to trumpet their victories."
Beck asks, "[A]fter you've killed 3,000 people, you're going to now build your mosque?" On his August 18 radio show, Glenn Beck said of Park51: "You look for things that are uniting, I'm sorry, but the Cordoba Project is not uniting. If you wanted to unite people, you don't spit in their face. You don't spit in their face. On the 10th anniversary, after you've killed 3,000 people, you're going to now build your mosque on there, really?" Beck has repeatedly falsely claimed that Park51 was scheduled to open on September 11, 2011. He has also referred to the Islamic center as "the 9-11 mosque" and has wondered if it is "a possibility" that Park51's location is about "inoculation."
Limbaugh calls Islamic center "a victory monument at Ground Zero." On August 17, Limbaugh called Park51 "a victory monument at Ground Zero, which is what this mosque is." He added: "The real question is why do people who don't like this country want that mosque there? What is so important about having it there?"
Palin calls Park 51 a "stab in the heart" for Americans and a "slap" to 9-11 victims. During the August 16 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin claimed that it was "an insensitive move on the part of those Muslims who want to build that mosque in this location. It feels like a stab in the heart to, collectively, Americans who still have that lingering pain from 9-11." Palin later said, "[T]his is a slap to those innocent victims who were murdered that day on 9-11."
Hoft dubs Park 51 the "Ground Zero Victory Mosque." In an August 16 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft touted Fox News' Bill O'Reilly's criticism of Obama's comments about Park 51 and described the Islamic community center as the "Ground Zero Victory Mosque."
Washington Times: "If the mosque is constructed, the terrorists win." In an August 19 editorial, The Washington Times stated of the planned Islamic community center in New York City: "The Ground Zero Mosque is not healing a rift but deepening a wound. If the mosque is constructed, the terrorists win."
Geller absurdly compared NYC Islamic cultural center to building a KKK "shrine" near black Alabama church. On the August 11 edition of Fox & Friends, Geller absurdly compared building an Islamic cultural center two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York to building a Ku Klux Klan "shrine" near a black church in Alabama.
Hemmer: Park51 could be "the first stop for a radical jihadist who comes to America who wants to go pray." On the September 7 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer said of Park51, "It could also be the first stop for a radical jihadist who comes to America who wants to go pray."
Boortz: Park51 "being built to commemorate a great victory over the United States on 9-11." During the August 31 edition of Fox & Friends, right-wing radio host Neal Boortz claimed that Park51 is "being built to commemorate a great victory over the United States on 9-11."
Urbanski: "Would it be inflammatory to call the mosque a 'murder mosque' if it's there on Ground Zero?" On the August 27 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show, guest host Doug Urbanski asked, "Would it be inflammatory to call the mosque a 'murder mosque' if it's there on Ground Zero?"
Limbaugh compares campaign against Park51 to Cold War: "We're now fighting the mosqueovites." On his August 25 radio show, Limbaugh compared the right-wing campaign against Park51 to the Cold War, claiming, "We're now fighting the mosqueovites."
Gaffney: Protesters holding signs with "Shariah" written in "dripping, blood-red ink" is "informed opposition" to Park51. In an August 26 Washington Times op-ed, Frank Gaffney wrote that protesters at a recent rally against the planned Islamic community center in Manhattan "had come together ... in informed opposition to the impetus behind that mosque: Shariah." Gaffney added: "In fact, throughout the crowd could be seen signs with just the word 'Shariah' lettered in dripping, blood-red ink."
True Christianity can't be practiced in the U.S. because you cannot stone people and you cannot practice slavery.
In this country, if any caveman christians decided to impart similar biblical justice, they'd end up in prison. . .
I will grant that such barbarity is currently much more common in Islam than it is in Christianity, but it definitely isn't a requirement of the religion as Graham suggests.
Hasn't he died yet?
Yeah, tell that to the lady who was facing the 'stone to death' penalty for adultery here. Or others who already faced it here.
You have no clue what you're talking about. You sound like a deviantly sick individual who can't stop typing names of body parts. Are you a liberal by any chance?
Try hard not to paint with such a broad stroke.
I'm not attempting to define "true islam." What constitutes "true islam," or what constitutes "true christianity," will obviously vary according to who you ask. My point is that several muslim countries legally sanction horrific violence in the name of what they view to be "true islam." Not the case here, where it's illegal for christians to discriminate against or beat women (and others), notwithstanding the fact that some might deem it the truly christian thing to do. In my view, there's a clear distinction between places where such conduct is condoned in the name of God, and places where such conduct is condemned as illegal, no matter what religious justifications are offered.
As for your points about violence against women and minorities as well as individual rights, one could make a case that (to varying degrees) these issues exist in the US as well. And often times people will invoke "god" as a rationale for such oppression. I abhor it all.
...and that said capital punishment is foolish for it makes society kill (NOT murder) and removes any chance of correcting a wrong should the conviction prove false.
Do tell - what is the difference?
That doesn't happen in Islam. You can be put to death for a variety of reasons, including not converting to Islam. BTW, my understanding is that the lady facing the stoning in Iran was also under a decree that she be hanged until dead for the murder of her husband also. So, she would have been stoned to death, then hanged until dead if the entire punishment was carried out.
Benjamin, I take it you have no rules in your home that must be followed. Since you don't believe in punishment to fit the crime.
Making incorrect comparisons to other extremes doesn't really help matters, and only takes away the focus on an enormous problem. One crazy preacher potentially burning the Koran in Florida vs the large number of people in the Middle East who practice and experience laws from the Dark Ages and blow themselves up freely for their religion- these two things aren't even in the same league.
We thinking, rational Americans (and you are definitely one, Bintx, as are most of the people on this board) need to recognize that. Not lump them all in together, like Limbaugh and his evil ilk, obviously, but we need to fully acknowledge recognize the problem, and not let them off the hook by trying to point fingers at much, MUCH milder versions of extremism.
Seventeen.
As an atheist, I think that more than any other religion, Islam is the worst offender when it comes to the absolute rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism.
It's a huge problem. Don't downplay it.
Good thing you're an atheist, because God would've gotten you for fibbing:)
It never happened. His portrayal of Islam is totally off-base too.
Years ago I knew of a "good Christian" mayor who regularly beat his wife. She finally left him, but to this day, this is not well known. He is still looked up to and respected by many people.
Look, if you really are a Christian, ratso, then I say "Mazel Tov". But if you're just writing that to prove your point, for whatever reason you got...then Jesus is gonna kick you in the nards, and real good too, boy. You don't learn anything about Judaism or Torah from reading the Christian bible. Jesus supposedly knew Torah cause he's a Jew [and you ain't]. Saulie-boy just twisted it all up. But that's ok. He'll soothe your busted nards real good. You just got to know the difference...cause you don't.
Since when are Jesus' words the entirety of christianity? Christians have never stopped citing old testament teachings as justification for their beliefs. Nothing in the new testament specifically rejects stoning or slavery. Those in the South who sought to preserve slavery frequently used the bible to support their positions. The pro-slavery side was able to find many more biblical defenses of slavery than the anti-slavery side could find opposing sections.
And now, for a bit of humor: Biblical Justice: Everybody Must Get Stoned
The link provides the passages that support each line.
To start, do you even own a Bible? Just what IS slavery? Do you have a job? If so, then you are a slave. Do you own a company and have employees? If so, then you are a slave owner.
Now, back to my point. Jesus IS God, God wrote the entire Bible. If you have a problem with the Bible, you should study it first before even attempting to claim what it says. Just like your ignorance of the quran, your ignorance of the Bible is just as glaring. Are you a liberal, by chance? I've noticed all liberals take any given word(s) from the Bible out of context and without any real guidance, so expecting a liberal to know what the Bible says/means is like asking an old women what it was like to be a virgin .... they don't know. But, like true liberals, it won't stop them from being experts on the intentions of the Bible. Well, except the part where God says homosexuality is a sin. That part they totally ignore because "Jesus didn't say it".
Last time I looked it was MAN who wrote the bible.... both testaments
The new testament supplanted the old testament in the christian religion. No word of retribution by god or any of the other violence that you so like to hang your hat on.
There is no rational reason to believe it's the actual or inspired word of any magical superbeings.
Your definition of slavery is warped and twisted. What you describe is employment, which is a contract between employer and employee for an exchange of compensation for labor. It can be terminated at will by either party. It's an insult to those who have actually suffered from real slavery to equate the two. However, I suppose that's to be expected from someone who is so sick as to believe that womanizing is equivalent to rape.
Coming from someone who has made those statements about rape and slavery, it's pretty comical to believe you could instruct me on what the bible says.
You don't believe me? Go to www.talk2action.org www.nolongerquivering.com www.godsownparty.com www.publiceye.org
No the majority of Christians don't behave in this way. You want to know which major politicans have Dominionist and Christian Reconstructionist ties? Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, O'Donnell (the loon running in Delaware), and many others.
I haven't thumbed you yet. But, where in Christianity did Jesus say you can stone people?
And, your ignorance of Christianity is showing concerning slavery. You really have NO clue, do you?
Either way, please provide the proof that Jesus taught stoning. Unless you're too stoned to provide that proof.
Jesus did not speak disapprovingly of either slavery or stoning and both are written of favorably in both old and new testaments.
Isn't it remarkable that I seem to be better versed in biblical teachings than you are?
Not after you say things like: "It's a jumble of fables, most loosely based on historic events and people". That just makes you sound like a stupid bigot.
OOPS, that's pagan. I want to go as Sharron Angle for Hallowe'en. Who wants to be Sarah Palin?
Yeah, don't be irrational and hold the terrorists responsible. After all, their feelings are justifiably hurt because media talking-heads are saying mean things, and miscreant are burning books (oh my!!!). What reasonably could be expected except suicide bombers blowing up buildings in order to enter allah's kingdom, where they'll be rewarded with 40 virgins for killing in the name of a "prophet" who molested little girls. You're right, it is getting insane.
I think the right wing rhetoric is out of control too, but let's not go overboard. The people who blow themselves up freely for their religion are to blame if any further terrorist acts occur.
I think that liberals (and I am a proud, dyed in the wool, card carrying one) need to rationally think about what is happening to the extremes of the Islamic faith and recognize that something has gone horribly wrong there.
What can we do about it? Obviously not lump all Muslims in together, like the hateful morons in this piece. But we cannot make false comparisons to other extremes- in the media, or even other religions- when it comes to their commitment to violence either.
Focusing on the M&M (Muslims and Mexicans) problem is a lot easier and a lot more profitable for the corporate-controlled media.
It also helps them avoid those pesky little issues like the Republican obstructionism aimed at ham-stringing efforts to get America back on its feet.
The self-anointed patriots quoted in this article are not doing GOD's work - they're doing OBL's.
The money's not bad, either.
All this racial, Muslim, immigration rhetoric is intended to create an association between President Obama and the Democrats and various hated, suspect minorities. That's what's going on, not so pure, but simple.
Failure to deal with this canker within society will likely lead to tears and anguish at best and bloodshed at worst. To get all biblical I could paraphrase Matt. 27.25 and say "let the blood be upon them and their followers".
Anyone who isn't a "true believer" can sit and watch them all fight.
Should be a great show. Hopefully there won't be enough of them left to bother us anymore.
Pamela Geller should be banned from using computers/laptops/mobile devices that have access to the internet.
HOORAY !!!
May we continue to gain wisdom from this sad event and progress as human beings toward a more compassionate nation and world.
Respectfully,
Annette