While the US was still reeling from the devastation caused by the
Boston bombing and before it was known who was responsible for the act,
there were those on the left who assumed, even hoped, that it was an act
of right wing terrorism. When their hopes were dashed, they took a
detour from grieving for the victims and began instead to focus on, as
they imagined it, the probability of backlash against Muslim Americans.
Apparently, they anticipated a string of retributive attacks against
Muslim Americans. These speculators tend to be very selective about
which victims deserve their attention and empathy, and their ideology
is based on the belief that “Islamophobia” like its cohort, racism, is a
prevalent force in the world.
For
example, following the Boston attack,
the Guardian published a piece
implying America is a country where the ill educated think “all Muslims
are terrorists”, so things could really escalate if “the perpetrator of
the Boston bombings turns out to be a Muslim”. The whirlwind of
post Boston commentary included narratives regarding
“the damage that Islamophobia can cause”, regarding the
“ignorance and prejudice [that emerge] in the aftermath of a terrorist attack”, and regarding Americans undergoing a
“collective freakout steeped in Islamophobia”. Oddly, ordinary Americans are feared more so than terrorists.
But, just where is this unruly Islamophobic mob? According to some in
the media, we should now be experiencing a sharp increase in hate
crimes against Muslims. However, in the years following 9/11 only 10% of
all hate crimes in which religion was the motive, were committed
against Muslims. On the other hand, religiously motivated hate crimes
against Jews total 68%. And, Christians are victimized by religiously
motivated hate at a rate slightly lower than that of Muslim victims.
Hate Crimes Motivated by Religion – 2002 – 2011 (via the FBI)
Total 13,842
Against Jews 9,366 (68%)
Against Christians (Protestant & Catholic) 1,136 (8%)
Against Muslims 1409 (10%)
Against Other Religions 1931 (14%)
The fact that Jews are victimized by hate crimes much more often than
Muslims would lead one to question the mainstream media’s rationale for
so vigorously defending the rights of Muslims while all but ignoring
the blatant hostility against Jews. Hate crimes against Christians occur
slightly little less often than anti-Muslims hate crimes, but the media
often portrays Christians as perpetrators rather than victims,
regardless of the facts.
Similarly, The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR), in a
report labeled
“Europe’s Counter-Jihad Movement” treats
valid concerns regarding Islamists as evidence of extremism. The
ICSR
is affiliated with the Swedish Ministry of Defence, Chuck Hagel,
several American universities, a number of Saudi sheikhs and a think
tank in Jordan. In addition to that, it is
affiliated with Georgetown University and home of the
Saudi funded Center for Muslim Christian Understanding. Its
founding director is
John Esposito, one of the top allies of the US Muslim Brotherhood network.
The Clarion Project
notes that, “rather than focusing on specific groups or individuals,
the entire anti-Islamist movement is portrayed as extreme. As evidence
of its extremism, the report points to the alleged influence of Robert
Spencer and Pamela Geller, two activists based in the US. Yet, neither
of them advocate violence, extremism or broad brush treatment of all
Muslims.” The Clarion Project also illuminates the credibility of the
anti-Islamist movement:
“One of the features of being a ‘far-right extremist’ is being concerned about ‘the stealthy implementation of Islamic
Sharia’, but that’s exactly the campaign described in the 1982 Muslim Brotherhood plan called ‘The Project,’ as well as the
1991 US Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum. In fact, Islamists describe their phased, incremental strategy as ‘gradualism.’”
And, in the case of convicted terrorist Sabri Bekhala, in a 2007
court filing,
federal prosecutors state:
“From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) conspired with other affiliates of the
Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists…the conspirators agreed to use
deception to conceal from the American public their connections to
terrorists.”
The following list of articles further supports the case against Islamists:
The Quran doesn’t have a single verse encouraging charitable acts
towards non-Muslims. There are, however, 493 passages that either
advocate violence or expound upon the hatred of Allah for infidels.
The
Quran’s primary function is to provide instructions on how Muslims are
to think and act towards those outside of Islam. Those who will not
submit to Islam, according to the Quran, are either to be killed or
forced to pay a tax (Jizya). According to
Peter Nilsson in his article titled,
“The Violent Quran”
over half of the Quran’s contents are texts derogatory towards infidels
or which incite violence against them. The history of Islam fully
demonstrates the influence of the Quran.
But, applying constructive criticism to the actions of Islamists is
treated as being worse than the heinous acts themselves. Those
criticizing Islam are branded with epithets such as “Islamophobe”,
“racist” or “right wing extremist”. A phobia is an unjustified fear of
something. Criticizing Islam does not constitute a phobia. It simply
analyzes and warns, which is justified.
Former Islamist imam Abdur-Rahman Muhammad
recalls
being at an International Institute of Islamic Thought meeting, during
which the decision was made to begin using the term “Islamophobia” as a
way of smearing their critics. CAIR, a group designated a US Muslim
Brotherhood entity by the US government, routinely employs this
tactic. The Islamophobia card is sometimes even used on Muslims. When an
opponent of CAIR and some of its allies, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, was
appointed to a government position they accused him of being a “sock
puppet for Islam haters and an enabler of Islomophobia.”
It should not be assumed that criticism of terrorists and Islamists
is the same as excoriating all Muslims. There are obvious reasons for
opposing the former. Those who cannot understand the difference between
hating an entire group and identifying the dangerous elements within the
group lack the most basic of critical thinking skills.
While the US was still reeling from the devastation caused by the
Boston bombing and before it was known who was responsible for the act,
there were those on the left who assumed, even hoped, that it was an act
of right wing terrorism. When their hopes were dashed, they took a
detour from grieving for the victims and began instead to focus on, as
they imagined it, the probability of backlash against Muslim Americans.
Apparently, they anticipated a string of retributive attacks against
Muslim Americans. These speculators tend to be very selective about
which victims deserve their attention and empathy, and their ideology
is based on the belief that “Islamophobia” like its cohort, racism, is a
prevalent force in the world.
