American Muslim Women Not Immune to Islamist Abuse

Muslim women2BY RYAN MAURO:

The women’s rights catastrophe in the Muslim world has reached America. Islamist groups and preachers in the U.S. are directly legitimizing the abuse of women or indirectly through advocacy of sharia law, and Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women, must hold them accountable.

Exhibit A is the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), a group based in California that fashions itself as an authoritative voice of matters of Islamic law. It issues fatwas, or religious declarations, in response to questions from Muslims seeking guidance. Its website has a fatwa bank that will shock anyone concerned about women’s rights.

fatwa published in 2010 justifies the practice of female genital mutilation:

“Some extremists from the West and their devout followers in the Muslim world would like to brand all circumcision as female genital mutilation (FGM) … all of their propaganda about female circumcision is no more than bigotry.”

One fatwa published in 2007 justifies marital rape:

“As for the issue of forcing a wife to have sex, if she refuses, this would not be called rape, even though it goes against natural instincts and destroys love and mercy, and there is a great sin upon the wife who refuses.”

One reason AMJA advises Muslims against joining law enforcement is because they “might have to arrest a Muslim man whose wife said he ‘raped’ her or forced her.” Another reason is the possibility of “gender mixing.”

AMJA is not a fringe organization whose influence is limited to the walls of its headquarters.

Its Secretary-General is Salah As-Sawy. He is also a co-founder ofAmerican Open University and was its Vice President from 1995 to 2004. He is also a co-founder and President of Mishkah Islamic University of North America.

AMJA’s Fatwa Committee includes Dr. Muwaffak Al-Ghaylany, the President of the League of Imams in North America and Imam of the Islamic Center of Grand Blank City in Michigan.

Another AMJA Fatwa Committee member is Dr. Waleed Al-Maneese, Vice President of the Islamic University of Minnesota and president of the board of trustees of Dar al-Farooq Islamic Center. He is also on the board of trustees of the North American Imams Federation.

These are just four AMJA officials. Its website’s “Our Experts” section lists 47 preachers around the world, mostly residing in America. It also separately lists 41 AMJA members.

Then there are the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in America.

An online article titled “Does Islam Allow Wife Beating?” utilizes the wisdom of Muzammil Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America.

“[I]n some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely,” Siddiqi is quoted as saying.

Read more at Clarion Project

 

Islamophobia in action? ‘Honor Diaries’ screening shut down by CAIR

download (90)Fox News,  March 31, 2014, By :

CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is at it again. This time they have succeeded in shutting down a screening of the film, “Honor Diaries,” at the University of Michigan, Dearborn last Thursday night, claiming that the film is ‘Islamophobic.’

“Honor Diaries” is a recently-released documentary profiling nine Muslim women and their horrific experiences in Islamic societies living with practices such as female genital mutilation, honor violence, honor killings and forced marriage at young ages.

CAIR started a Twitter campaign a few days ago against the film, calling it ‘Islamophobic,’ the term groups such as CAIR use not to mean prejudice or fear against the religion, but a fabricated term used to denote anything unflattering to Islam.

It’s a tactic used by CAIR and others to successfully and often indefinitely quiet any criticism of Islam, even when it’s shining light upon the practice of honor violence and depriving young women of education, two central themes in the film.

And most of the time it works. We see it in cases such as this one, where individuals like those organizing this film screening become fearful at the thought of offending a minority group.  Because offending others is very anti-American; but then again, isn’t stifling free speech?

Who is being offended when we are talking about mutilation and women setting themselves on fire to escape marriage before puberty?

How can any interest group protest the profiling of violent and grotesque practices against women?

Well, CAIR has been careful to say that while these subjects do need to be addressed, they shouldn’t be profiled by “Islamophobes” or by the Clarion Project, the group funding the film.

Clarion’s previous film projects include “Iranium,” the “Third Jihad” and “Obsession.” More importantly, as far as CAIR is concerned and in further delegitimizing Clarion’s work, it’s headed by Raphael Shore, a Canadian-Israeli rabbi.

But CAIR isn’t doing the dirty work here or even its own research.  The group is relying on the facts and arguments presented by Richard Silverstein, a progressive blogger who discredits the film on his blog: “One has to ask why a film about the purported abuse of Muslim women was produced by Jews, and ones with a distinct ideological agenda at that.”

CAIR links to his blog on Twitter to make the case: A Jew can’t be profiling human rights abuses against Muslim women.

But how much longer can we as a society allow a group, that is meant to constructively guide and promote the integration of a religious group, instead bully those who are only trying to expose its dangerous and extremist practices?  When they attempt to cover up these crimes, are they not as guilty as the perpetrators?

As a council, CAIR is meant to be a bridge facilitating relations between the American and Islamic communities. Instead, they are creating the rifts and enlarging the gaps.

Shouldn’t CAIR be first in calling out these inhumane practices if they are looking to protect the name of Islam and its people?

The Huffington Post did both an article and video segment on “Honor Diaries,” just after the film’s debut on March 8 in honor of International Women’s Day.

The Huff Post championed its cause and echoed its important message, as a film raising awareness about human rights and misogyny, not one defiling Islam.

“CAIR has done what they do best: deflect the issue. Since they don’t address the issue of violence head on, why let anyone else bring it up?” Raheel Raza, one of the activists featured in the film, told me.

Raza, originally from Pakistan, now lives in Canada and is an author, speaker, president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow and founder of Forum 4 Learning, a group promoting religious diversity and interfaith harmony.

“If they lobby to have the event cancelled, then they have effectively swept it under the carpet and for them it doesn’t exist. This is why it’s so important to see ‘Honor Diaries’ and break the barriers of silence and constipated political correctness,” Raza said.

The danger in allowing a group like CAIR to strong-arm a university into canceling an important screening is two fold.

First, it becomes our duty as a society to never allow the ideology of one group to overpower the rights of another just by throwing around an overused, loaded word: ‘Islamophobic.’

Americans have become extremely tolerant of varying opinions, religions, philosophies, etc. We are careful not to offend and alienate. But what will political correctness cost us as a society? To what degree is political correctness no longer correct but used just as a weapon to censor and control the dialogue?

Secondly, the appalling practices such as female genital mutilation, honor violence, honor killings and forced marriage at young ages.of this film must be exposed and people must become aware of them. It is the responsibility of every free individual to know about and to actively oppose these practices in modern times.

Unfortunately, these awful acts are not just examples of Islamic violence in Middle Eastern or African countries. In fact, one of the characters of the film lives in the UK.

And to take this further, it’s already at our doorstep here in the United States.

Of course we are called ‘Islamophobic’ every time this inconvenient fact is raised, but U.S. courts have had to apply international law bans to keep Sharia Law out of the courtroom when  Muslim families have wanted to apply Islamic law against their children and others.

A painful example that comes to mind is the story of Amina and Sarah Said, sisters who were born and lived in Texas, and shot and killed by their father in 2008 for having non-Muslim boyfriends.

Every time we lose a single opportunity, such as a screening of this film, to raise awareness about these barbaric practices, it’s another smug victory for the extremists, the child oppressors, and the women abusers among us.

It was CAIR that cried, ‘Islamophobia.’ And that’s what it should remain — a false cry. And very much like the fable of the boy who cried wolf, these baseless allegations will increasingly be seen as background noise and not as a distraction from the truth or a stifling in the message of films such as “Honor Diaries,” working to expose heinous human rights crimes and violence against women.

CAIR may try to intimidate those delivering the message, but fear will not indefinitely quiet the truth seekers. Reality will only become louder with time.

Lisa Daftari is a Fox News contributor specializing in Middle Eastern affairs

*************

Megyn Kelly did a powerful segment on this tonight with Brooke Goldstein and Qanta Ahmed:

 

The Watchman Show: Camp Jihad and Unraveling the Middle East

By Erick Stakelbek:

On this week’s episode of The Watchman, we’re joined by Brooke Goldstein, director of the Lawfare Project and the Children’s Rights Institute, to discuss the growing movement against free speech in the West and how the United Nations is helping indoctrinate Palestinian schoolchildren in anti-Semitic hate.

Plus, Middle East and intelligence expert Avi Melamed gives his insider take on the latest developments in the world’s most volatile region.

Sounding the Alarm on Silent Jihad

By Andrew E. Harrod:

“There is broad bipartisan agreement that America is at risk,” declared former House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra via video at the March 6, 2014, National Security Action Summit (NSAC).  The “silent jihad” of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) affiliated groups described by Hoekstra at National Harbor’s Westin Hotel across the Potomac River from Washington, DC, should alarm all Americans.

Congressman Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence

Congressman Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence

In comparison to the “violent jihad” of groups like Al Qaeda, the MB “strategy is very, very different,” Hoekstra explained during the panel “The Muslim Brotherhood, the ‘Civilization Jihad’ and Its Enablers.”  MB groups “are going to use our laws, our customs…our freedom of speech, the values we profess…to become a cancer” in the United States.  MB supporters would seek “initially a tolerance of sharia law” that “begins the process of establishing of Islamism,” a process evident in certain European neighborhoods where sharia has become “de facto law.”  “Never forget the phrase:  The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” Hoekstra added when discussing cooperation across intra-Muslim sectarian divides such as between a Sunni Al Qaeda and a Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran.  “They ultimately share the same objective:  the destruction of the West.”

MB “Islamic supremacism” or Islamism “is not a fringe ideology” but is actually the “dynamic element of Islam” today, former first World Trade Center (WTC) bombing prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy observed in his video address.  Contrary to the “very Politically Correct interpretation of Islam” encountered among policymakers by McCarthy, Islamism is “not a hijacking of a doctrine” but rather Islam’s “most unalloyed form.”  Suffering numerous maladies, the Blind Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman prosecuted by McCarthy could only lead the 1993 WTC terrorists because “he was a master of sharia doctrine.”  Without understanding “sharia supremacism” as a “very active ideology” according to polls of Muslims worldwide, “we will never be able to protect ourselves.”

“You don’t know jack,” sharia expert Stephen Coughlin agreed on the panel, without understanding this MB “metanarrative.”  “It runs deep…the threat,” Coughlin noted concerning terms taken “verbatim” from the 7thcentury Pact of Umar recently imposed by Syrian jihadist groups upon Christians.  Yet Coughlin worried that the “enemy knows us better than us” in an America whose political and religious leaders often no longer properly understand their constitution and Judeo-Christian faith, respectively.

Subverting rule of law through “narrative control” is central to Islamist groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an international grouping of 57 (including “Palestine”) mostly majority-Muslim states.  “If you do not control the narrative, no matter what position you take, you will lose.”  In particular, “he who controls the First Amendment…controls the Constitution,” Coughlin warned in discussing the OIC’s 2005 Ten-Year Strategic Action Plan with its call for “Combating Islamophobia” via censorship.  The OIC would seek to interpret the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ Article 20 ban on incitement as prohibiting speech to which recipients react violently.  This is the “battered wife syndrome” of “if you say that, I am going to have to beat you up”

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition

Islam Prof, Saudi Cleric & Clarion Slam Jihadists on Arabic TV

RM

Anti-Islamist language and attitudes used show how disconnected CAIR and others are from the mainstream Muslim public.

BY RYAN MAURO:

On March 8, I was invited to appear on a panel on the television network Al-Hurra a U.S.-based Arabic language satellite TV channel, as the Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst. To be honest, I expected to be ganged up on. Instead, the Muslims fired away at the Muslim Brotherhood and Qatar, using terminology that groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations claim are forms of “Islamophobia.”

The topic was Saudi Arabia’s blacklisting of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group. The other panelists were a professor of Islamic studies and a former member of the Saudi Shura Council, the body that oversees the application of Sharia.

rm2Both guests wholeheartedly endorsed the crackdown on the Brotherhood, with one even stating that it should have been done 20 years ago. The government of Qatar was a subject of scorn for its support of the Brotherhood and, to a lesser degree, so was Turkey. The host even asked me if it was possible that the Saudis would designate Turkey’s ruling AKP party as a terrorist group.

The lexicon of my Muslim co-panelists would have enraged the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the other large Muslim-American groups linked to the Brotherhood. They used terms like “Islamist” and “jihadist” without reservation.

While CAIR and its allies point to that kind of vocabulary as proof of anti-Muslim bigotry, these Muslim panelists expected the Arab audience to understand that this is not the case. They didn’t need to clarify what they meant because it is obvious that they weren’t attacking Islam or all of its adherents. I freely used similar terms without confrontation.

This aspect of the show demonstrates how CAIR’s voice is not reflective of the Muslim world.

CAIR rallies against these terms because it does not want its Islamist ideology questioned and it wants to silence its opponents. In the Muslim world, the use of terms like “Islamist” and “jihadist” are not offensive; they are necessary and understood. The controversy over them was manufactured by CAIR and similar groups for political purposes.

More broadly, my appearance on Al-Hurra is an indictment of the American media’s handling of Islamist issues.

Read more at Clarion Project

Fox Haters Carrying Water for CAIR

The Council on American-Islamic Relations Announces Educational Initiativeby :

For some progressive writers, it’s more important to bash Fox News than to expose American Islamist groups’ rejection of liberal values. In recent weeks, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has aggressively promoted articles by Fox haters who are more concerned with smearing CAIR opponents as anti-Muslim bigots than addressing facts and evidence.

The U.S. Justice Department says CAIR is a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and labeled it an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-financing trial. Federal prosecutors said in a 2007 court filing that CAIR uses deception to “conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.” CAIR’s documented record should alienate every progressive.

Part of those efforts is taking advantage of writers with influence in the media. Don’t take my word for it. Look at what CAIR Vice Chair Sarwat Husain said at another terror-tied conference:

“Media in the United States is very gullible, ok? And they will see that if you have something, especially as a Muslim, if you have something to say, they will come running to you—and take advantage of that.”

In a presentation by CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, he told supporters how to manipulate reporters. One of the slides was titled “Characteristics of a Journalist” and said, “They will expect you to do their work. Let them.”

CAIR also said to exploit the fact that journalists do “little primary research,” are “under extreme deadline pressure” and “fea[r] charges of inaccuracy.” This is especially true of CAIR’s media allies that choose political ideology over all else.

On February 20, CAIR distributed a Media Matters hit piece by Michelle Leung describing me as “Fox’s Newest Anti-Muslim ‘National Security Analyst,’” even though I am neither anti-Muslim nor “new” on Fox. If she had checked her own website’s archives, she would have seen a hit piece from 2011 about an appearance. The premise of that article is that I am not a credible speaker on Libya because I opposed the Ground Zero Mosque.

My appearance was about the Clarion Project’s disclosure of a jihadist enclave in Texas run by Jamaat ul-Fuqra/Muslims of the Americas. Her article didn’t even mention the topic I was discussing because that might wake readers up as to why this was a story worth covering.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Vice Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, said the discovery is “appalling.” Despite Leung’s description of Clarion and me as “anti-Muslim,” around a dozen Muslim organizations in the U.S. and Canada endorsed a statement calling on the U.S. government to label Jamaat ul-Fuqra as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Read more at Front Page

International Women’s Day — why America’s politically correct feminists dishonor human rights

burqaBy :

As a young bride, I once lived in a harem in Afghanistan. It was a nearly fatal adventure but I survived, escaped, and learned about gender and religious apartheid long before the Taliban.  My firebrand American feminism was probably forged in purdah in the early 1960s. However, something called me Eastward and I have remained involved with the Islamic world.

Today, decades later, I work with Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents and feminists. They do not understand why Western feminists do not stand with them as they oppose normalized honor based violence, extreme state violence (think Iran, Saudi Arabia), and utter lawlessness when it comes to the torture and murder of girls and women.

Why would intelligent and educated Western feminists remain blind to such crimes in America?

Most recently, a law has been proposed in Afghanistan that will make it impossible for a woman whose family has beaten, tortured, or tried to kill her, to lodge a complaint of any kind. Such complaints are seen as endangering family unity. Orwell would understand this.

But why would intelligent and educated Western feminists remain blind to such crimes in America?

To their credit, American feminists exposed and opposed violence against women and championed a woman’s right to bodily integrity and  have done heroic humanitarian work in war zones, including Afghanistan. Some have critiqued the Afghan burqa (a sensory deprivation isolation chamber and ambulatory body bag) as a symbol of barbaric misogyny.

But feminists have been taken in by the false campaign against “Islamophobia,” (which does not really exist), and have backed President Obama’s approach to the Muslim world: Appeasement, flattery, a refusal to back the bravest Muslim dissidents who are fighting against barbaric totalitarian regimes, and a wholesale acceptance of Muslim women’s subordinate status in the United States.

Like Islamists, they believe that American tolerance and separation of religion and state mandate acceptance of face veiling and non-interference with close family monitoring, normalized daughter-beating, forced marriage to a first cousin, polygamy, and female genital mutilation (FGM) which exist in America, under the radar.

According to Archi Payati ,Deputy Director of Sanctuary for Families/Immigration Intervention whether they are done here or abroad, “the New York metropolitan area is the capital for (women who have had) illegal FGM procedures.”

Some Western feminists insist that the Islamic veil (niqab and burqa) is sexy, mysterious, and comfortable; others view the veil as a religious or privacy right.

Many Muslims do not.

While it is potentially perilous to involve the state in mandating what a woman cannot wear i.e. banning the burqa — feminists do not realize that women are honor killed for refusing to veil properly and that for nearly a century Muslim women fought for or were granted the right to be naked-faced in Egypt, Turkey, Persia, Jordan, Lebanon, the Maghreb, and Afghanistan.

In addition, some Western feminist academics and activists are reluctant to take a stand against honor killing in the West lest they be accused of racism or “Islamophobia”—even though the victims are women of color.

Their alleged anti-racism trumps their concerns with women’s rights. They are multi-cultural relativists who have sacrificed universal standards of human rights on the altar of “political correctness.”

As the author of three studies about honor killing, I know that this crime is rarely reported and even more rarely prosecuted. It is pandemic in Muslim countries and in parts of Hindu India. The United Nations continues to use statistics from the year 2000 which cite that “5,000 women are honor murdered each year.”

A Pakistani Human Rights Commission documents that 943 Pakistani women were honor murdered in the year 2011 alone. Statistics are elusive for North America but, in Middle East Quarterly, I have documented an escalation of such crimes based on media reports, public trials, and interviews.

Over the last quarter-century, high profile honor killings have taken place in Missouri, Ohio,  Illinois, New Jersey, Georgia, Florida, New York, Arizona, and Texas, and in Canada, from coast to coast. The majority are Muslim-on-Muslim crimes, a minority are Sikh-on-Sikh crimes.

I have worked with American and Canadian detectives, prosecutors, judges, and juries who have been warned they will be labeled “Islamophobes” if they describe the crime of honor killing as such.

Read more at Fox News

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies, a Fellow at the Middle East Forum, the author of thousands of articles and of fifteen books, including “Women and Madness,” and “An American Bride in Kabul.” She archives her articles and may be reached through her website: www.phyllis-chesler.com

Also see:

The Real Agenda Behind the Push for “Islamophobia”

by Raheel Raza:

Islamists have been successful in building the Islamophobia industry: it diverts attention from activities they would probably prefer not be noticed, such as promoting sharia law in the West, stealth jihad, and a push to implement a global Islamic caliphate, among many others.

What is ironic and hypocritical about the Islamophobia hype from members of the OIC is their double-standards when it comes to minorities in their own lands. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, the Palestinian Authority and Iran are among OIC members that have appalling human rights violations against minorities.

Islamophobia has almost become a fad for a certain group of academics and Muslims across North America. 2013 was a bumper year for Islamophobia conferences in America and abroad.

  • “Islam, Political Islam, and Islamophobia: an International Conference” was held at Indiana University, Bloomington on March 29-30, 2013.
  • Islam, Politics and Islamophobia,” an international conference of the Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies Chair, took place at the Indiana Memorial Union Faculty.
  • International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media“, hosted in Istanbul, was organized by the Directorate General of Press and Information, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and under the auspices of Mr. Bulent Arinc, the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, and took place in September, 2013. The website starts off by stating “Islamophobia, which is a term used to express the groundless fear and intolerance of Islam and Muslims, has swept the world, becoming detrimental to international peace especially in recent years.”
  • The IWIC’s 2013 conference on “Women in Islam,” in Atlanta, Georgia from November 22 to 24, used the theme, “Eradicating Islamophobia.”

One would think that four conferences in one year would be enough for the International group of speakers to discuss, debate and hash out that, in their view, there is an epidemic of Muslim-bashing taking place in North America.

However it seems that these are not enough to complete the agenda of the Islamists. Therefore this year the University of California, Berkeley is hosting its fifth annual International conference on the study of Islamophobia, from April 14 to 19, 2014.

It is frightening to realize that this is their fifth such conference; the website states, “the obsessive pre-occupation of everything related to Islam and Muslims, congressional and parliamentary hearings criminalizing Muslims and violations of their civil liberties and rights, domestic and international surveillance programs exclusively on Muslims and Arabs, extra-judicial use of force on Muslims and Arabs, interventions, military campaigns, and policies rationalizing its exercise, are, in essence, what we see and bear witness in the Muslim world. These are the direct effects of latent Islamophobia.”

University of California, Berkeley is home to Professor Hatem Bazian, who directs the school’s “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project,” and teaches a course titled, “Asian American Studies 132AC: Islamophobia.”

Seriously? A course on Islamophobia? Recently, Professor Bazian told 100 students in his class to tweet about Islamophobia – all being done to promote an agenda of “victimhood.”

 

UC-Berkeley Professor Hatem Bazian speaks on “Promoting Islamophobia” at the Occupy AIPAC Summit in 2012. (Image source: YouTube screenshot)

Obviously the Islamophobia conferences, the courses and the tweeting professor must find support for their self-serving propaganda somewhere. Part of this support comes from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an international organization consisting of 57 Arab and Muslim member states, including the entity of the Palestinian Authority. The organization states that it is “the collective voice of the Muslim world” and works to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.” The term “Muslim world” is offensive: no one speaks for all Muslims, and for the OIC to consider itself the “voice of the Muslim world” is dictatorial in the extreme.

No surprise, then, that on their website they have an Islamophobia Observatory, where they mention their support of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, adopted in 2011, on “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief”.

What is ironic and hypocritical about all the Islamophobia hype by members of the OIC is their double standards when it comes to minorities in their own lands. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, the Palestinian Authority and Iran are among OIC members that have appalling human rights violations against minorities, and are routinely ignored under UNHRC Resolution 16/18.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Also see:

UC Professor Forces Students to Tweet About Islamophobia

UCBBY TAREK FATAH:

In 2002, when Prof. Daniel Pipes launched his “Campus Watch” initiative to monitor “the mixing of politics with scholarship” on American universities with regard to the Mideast, he was condemned as engaging in “McCarthyesque” intimidation.

His initiative was derided as a “war on academic freedom.” One Islamist group labelled Pipes the “grandfather of Islamophobes”.

However, 12 years after Pipes first raised the flag of Islamist penetration of U.S. universities, it appears that Pipes, a scholar of Islam with a dozen books to his credit, was right to be concerned.

Two weeks ago, I received a panicked message from a student enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley.

He wrote: “I’ve been told by one of my professors I will be required, as part of my grade, to start a Twitter account and tweet weekly on Islamophobia. I can’t help but feel this is unethical. This is his agenda not mine.”

The professor conducting this exercise was Hatem Bazian as part of a course titled, “Asian American Studies 132AC: Islamophobia”.

When I asked him to elaborate on his concerns the student wrote:

“There are 100 students in the class, all of us forced to create individual Twitter accounts. I’m not wholly clear on what our final project is yet (I find it very interesting that he excludes both the Twitter account requirement AND the final project from his official syllabus), but we have to meet with a group in San Francisco, and our class will be surveying people of color on the impact of some ads put out by (anti-Sharia blogger) Pamela Gellar. Now I’m no Pamela Gellar fan, I think she’s nuts, but I feel … between the Twitter stuff and the final project he’s basically using us as unpaid labor to work on his agenda.”

See Clarion Project’s article about Hatem Bazian:

 CAIR Gives Award to Anti-American Islamist

I wrote to Prof. Bazian, who co-founded “Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)” at Berkeley, asking why he was using his students to pursue what appeared to me to be a political exercise meant to propagate a specific message to the Twitterverse.

Bazian replied, without referring to Islamophobia:

“My course is designated as an American culture community engagement scholarship class … Students are asked to send at least one posting per week on something related to the course content, be it from the actual reading or anything they read or came across.”

When I asked him why all the tweets by his students so far are about Islamophobia, he replied:

“The class is titled De-Constructing Islamophobia and the History of Otherness … (Students) are asked to post based on … examining Islamophobia through looking at earlier historical examples.”

The fact remains Prof. Bazian appears to be using his position of authority to make 100 students — mostly non-Muslims — tweet about Muslim victimhood in America, irrespective of how it’s defined or whether it exists.

Read more at Clarion Project

Tarek Fatah, is a Canadian writer, broadcaster and anti-Islamist Muslim activist. He is the author of Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State and the founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

Also see:

Muslim ‘Enrichment’ in Britain: One Week Snapshot

By Paul Wilkinson:

The celebrants of multiculturalism constantly remind us of never-ending invigorating cultural enrichment, so just for fun, I thought I would make a note of some stories involving Islam or Muslims in Britain over a one week period.

The week I happened to choose was between Thursday 23rd January and Wednesday 29th January 2014. There was nothing significant about those dates, and it was selected entirely at random.

To set the scene, just before the week in question commenced, the Home Office announced that high-risk terrorists will be released from prison and will not be monitored properly, to protect their human rights; a Muslima redefined British legal history as she stood trial in a full face veil; there were reports of a serial flasher (urinating) in the Blackburn/Accrington area; an Islamic teacher guilty of groping pupils; and reports of murders and rapes going unreported in no-go zones for police as minority communities (AKA ‘Muslim’) launch their own justice systems.

So what could happen in the week I chose? Having followed the exhilarating enrichment that Muslims bring to the rich tapestry of modern Britain for a few years now, I was certainly not counting anything either in or out, so here goes! It really was like having a blank canvas!

Thursday 23rd January

Friday 24th January

  • DittaSentencing of Lee Rigby’s killers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, was expected today but was delayed due to an appeal over whether whole life sentences can be given.
  • Blackburn: ‘You’ve messed with the wrong Muslims!’ CCTV images show three women trying to kidnap and rob their sister’s lesbian lover during a row over arranged marriage. Seamless integration is awarded with a combined 30 years in prison for the six siblings (Pictured here).

Saturday 25th January

  • (Video) London: Islamists demonstrate in support of Al-Qaeda in Syria, against FSA. No sign of ‘anti-fascist’ protestors either. Of course that would be ‘Islamophobic’ of them!
  • ‘Brits’ returning to the UK from Syria will be ‘stopped at the border and face arrest’, with 16 arrests made so far this month.

Sunday 26th January

  • Mo_bday_parade-300x200Sunday is no longer a day of rest in today’s vibrant Britain as residents of Nelson discovered when an intimidating group of 5,000 Muslims stormed through the town to celebrate Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. Pictured here is another show of force in Blackburn. I cannot see any females in the photo. Who knows, maybe the women are at the back?

Monday 27th January

  • Rochdale Councillor and Council Finance Chief, Farooq Ahmed, quizzed by police over ‘homophobic’ insult made at a fellow councillor in public.
  • News of child exploitation/grooming gang in Newcastle-upon-Tyne emerges today and by Wednesday a total of 25 arrests had been made. No news on the identity of the perpetrators at the time of writing, but this type of crime is dominated by Muslim men, and the focus of the investigation is in the west end of Newcastle, which is home to a large Muslim population.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

CAIR Blasts President Obama for His State of the Union Address

state-of-the-union-APClarion Project, BY RYAN MAURO:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, is blasting President Obama for the comments he made about the Middle East in his State of the Union speech. By criticizing Obama’s pledge to support Israel as a Jewish state, CAIR indirectly expressed its support for the elimination of the democratic U.S. ally.

“American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians as they engage in difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state for Palestinians, and lasting peace and security for the State of Israel – a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side,” said President Obama.

Ibrahim Hooper, the communications director of CAIR, responded by calling the statement a “very negative precedent.” He compared the identification of Israel as a Jewish to apartheid South Africa.

The opposition to Israel’s status as a Jewish state is a carefully-worded way of opposing Israel’s existence. This manipulative use of semantics was one of CAIR’s foundational purposes.

In 1993, the FBI wiretapped a secret meeting of Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas operatives in Philadelphia. The get-together led to the founding of CAIR the next year by two of the present leaders. The discussion focused on creating a new organization with a clean track record that could present a message more palatable to an American audience.

Omar Ahmad, one of CAIR’s later founders and former board chairman and Nihad Awad, CAIR’s current executive director, discussed how to handle the posing of a question about whether they want to destroy Israel.

“There is a difference between you saying ’I want to restore the ’48 land’ and when you say ‘I want to destroy Israel,’” Ahmad said.

In another exchange on the topic, someone said to Ahmad, “We don’t say that publicly. You cannot say that publicly, in front of Americans.” He concurred, replying, “We didn’t say that to the Americans.”

CAIR also expressed its disappointment with President Obama on the topic of National Security Agency intelligence-gathering. CAIR accuses the NSA of “cultivating Islamophobia” and says Congress should “restore the privacy rights of all citizens.”

The organization has helped spread exaggerated impressions of NSA operations and even sued the NSA alongside a Unitarian church. In October, it helped put together an interfaith coalition to protest the NSA. The Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro debated one of the organizers of the protest on Chinese television.

Another issue CAIR criticized President Obama for was the use of drones to eliminate terrorists. President Obama said he would scale back the usage of the weapon overseas to minimize anti-American sentiment.

CAIR is asking President Obama to address “the drone program’s lack of public accountability and transparency, claims of executive overreach, possible lack of due process in lethally targeting American citizens, and the high number of civilian casualties that have resulted from these attacks.”

Drone strikes are precise and the projected civilian casualty toll is always taken into account when launching them. There is no proof to the contrary. CAIR uses the relative term of “high number” to reinforce the impression that the U.S. government is essentially massacring civilians.

CAIR is also referring to the controversial drone strike that killed American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who joined Al-Qaeda and became a senior leader involved in planning operations against the U.S.. CAIR feels that the U.S. should have captured him and put him on trial and that his death is a violation of due process.

If the U.S. could have captured al-Awlaki, it would have—but he was hiding in Yemen and on the move. The killing of al-Awlaki, an American citizen, is no different than the killing of a bank robber or school shooter that is an American citizen. CAIR doesn’t tell that side because it would rather that its audience see the U.S. government as an out-of-control tyrant with an anti-Muslim agenda.

CAIR’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union raises a separate but related point. The organization references thecongressional testimony of its government affairs manager about drones in May 2013.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history. The federal government labeled it a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. The FBI’s official policy bans personnel from using CAIR as an outreach partner because of its links to Hamas and other Islamist radicals.

So why is CAIR being used for congressional testimony on counter-terrorism operations? How can CAIR, which was labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in terror funding, be invited to educate the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights?

CAIR’s deception-laced political influence operation was never aimed at the Left, Center or Right. This is not a partisan issue. The Islamists have friends and adversaries in each party.

Those concerned about Islamism must fight efforts to frame it as a Left/Right issue. If that is how it is viewed, then CAIR and its allies will know it can always count on one side to reflexively support it like a good teammate.

Liberals, conservatives and libertarians all have plenty of reasons to oppose Islamism and its apologists in the U.S. With the proper information, this can be a uniting issue.

 

The Hypocrisy of Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR’s ‘Islamophobic List’

36459-193808-1By Robert Spencer:

Editor’s Note: This is Part VI of an ongoing series by Robert Spencer highlighting human rights hypocrisy and fraudulent peace activists. For Part I see “The Hypocrisy of the ‘Islamophobia’ Scam,” for Part II see “The Hypocrisy of the Fatwa Against Terrorism,”  for Part III see “The Hypocrisy of the Feminist Response to Islam’s Oppression of Women,” for Part IV see “The Hypocrisy of the Western Christian Response to Muslim Persecution of Christians,” and for Part V see last week’s “The Hypocrisy of the Leftist Response to Ariel Sharon’s Death.”

Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) last week sent out a crafty and deceptive op-ed as a “service,” and of course our lazy, clueless and compromised mainstream media was happy to oblige him by publishing it. The op-ed, “Islamophobic ‘List’ Used to Justify Suspicion of Muslims,” seems to have been a response to Pamela Geller’s recent exhaustive summary at Breitbart of Islamic jihad and supremacist activity in America in 2013. In response, Hooper offered not honesty and reform, but disingenuousness and deception.

Hooper claimed that,

one of the bigoted themes often promoted by the growing cottage industry of Muslim-bashers is that the increasing level of Islamophobia online and in the public arena is merely a legitimate response to the violent actions of Muslims worldwide.

He thus reveals the dishonesty at the heart of the entire “Islamophobia” initiative: Islamic supremacists and leftists use the term to refer both to analyses of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism (e.g., what my colleagues and I do) and also to attacks on innocent Muslims (which neither I nor my colleague nor any decent person favors).

The objective is to make Americans think that any criticism of Islamic texts that jihadis use to incite violence worldwide threatens and endangers Muslims at home who don’t approve of that violence in the first place. Then by saying that “Muslim-bashers” claim that “Islamophobia” is a “legitimate response to the violent actions of Muslims worldwide,” Hooper is implying that those who decry violence and terror committed by Muslims in the name of Islam approve of violence against innocent, peaceful Muslims, as if to say, they had it coming.

Hooper cannily designs all this to obscure the real point: that people are suspicious of Islam because of jihad terror attacks — but not just because of them, but also because of the endless mau-mauing, intimidating, opposition to counter-terror efforts, claiming of victim status, faked hate crimes, smear campaigns against foes of jihad terror, and all the other things that make people suspicious of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslim organizations in the U.S.

No genuine attack on any innocent person, Muslim or otherwise, is ever justified. If Hamas-linked CAIR really wants to stop such attacks, it could do so by working sincerely to end the suspicions people have of Islam and Muslims — not with disingenuous “outreach” sessions designed to dispel “misconceptions” about Islam (i.e., spread more misconceptions about Islam, fool people into thinking it is a “Religion of Peace,” etc.), but by honestly working within Muslim communities and with law enforcement to root out jihadis and teach against the understanding of Islam that creates jihadis. Instead, Hamas-linked CAIR has opposed virtually every counter-terror measure that has ever been proposed, and one of its California chapters distributed a poster reading “Don’t talk to the FBI.”

You might wonder why Hamas-linked CAIR would do this if it wants to end “Islamophobia” (in the sense of suspicion of Islam) — surely Hooper, Awad and co. must know that those things increase such suspicion? Yes, I am sure they do — but in fact they want “Islamophobia” (both suspicion of Islam and attacks on peaceful Muslims) because they can use such attacks to claim victim status and the privileges that come with it, thus intimidating officials into thinking that surveillance of Islamic organizations is unjustified and endangers innocent people.

“These Islamophobes,” Hooper also asserted, “scour the Internet to highlight every act of violence or political instability that can be tied to Islam and Muslims.” At my website Jihad Watch, I chronicle Islamic jihad activity in the U.S. and around the world, and I never in ten years have had to “scour the Internet” to do so. On the contrary, there is so much jihad violence that rarely am I able to post all the news items I’d like to post; time and resources limit the ones I can get to. Whatever I have on Jihad Watch, there is always more jihad. But Hooper, of course, would prefer you didn’t know that.

Read more at PJ Media

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s “Islamophobia” Campaign against Freedom

Dr. Mark Durie

Dr. Mark Durie

By Andrew E. Harrod:

The “quite formidable” Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) “has really escaped the notice of a lot of foreign policy observers,” religious freedom scholar Nina Shea noted at a January 17, 2014, Hudson Institute panel.  To correct this deficiency, Shea moderated an important presentation on the OIC’s stealth jihad against freedom by her “old friend” Mark Durie, an Anglican theologian and human rights activist.

As Durie’s PowerPoint presentation available online noted, the 1969-founded OIC headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, contains 57 mostly Muslim-majority states (including “Palestine”).  The second largest international organization after the United Nations (UN), the OIC is a “major global voting block” at the UN and unique in being the “only such organization devoted to advancing a religion.”  The OIC is “largely funded by Saudi Arabia,” Shea noted, having contributed $30 million to the 2008 budget, far greater than the next largest contribution of $3 million from Kuwait.

Ominously, the OIC has been “lobbying assiduously” since about 2000 against “Islamophobia,” Shea observed.  “Islamophobia” was analogous to “homophobia,” Durie’s PowerPoint elaborated, an analogy previously noted by Islamic sharia law expert Stephen Coughlin and analyzed by this author.  A “[n]arrow reading” of this “deep-seated and irrational fear about Islam or Muslims” would encompass only prejudices such as the “xenophobic aversion to Muslims” of some.

A “[b]road reading” by the OIC and others, though, condemns “all expressions of opposition to or disapproval of Islam” as “irrational and manifestations of prejudice.”  “Islamophobia is a deliberate scheme to distort the teachings and principles of peace and moderation engrained in Islam,” the PowerPoint quoted from the OIC’s 2013 Sixth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia.  “9/11 came as a long awaited opportunity,” the report specifies, “for the anti-Islam and anti-Muslim elements in the West to set in motion their well orchestrated plan to slander Islam and target Muslims by equating terror with Islam and Muslims.”  Such bigots were “just hanging out” and waiting for Al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001, attacks, Durie mocked.

The OIC and its recently retired Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu assume that the “Islamic religion is under attack,” thereby posing an “atmosphere of threat to the world,” Durie stated.  Yet American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hate crime statistics in Durie’s PowerPoint belie this Islamic victimhood, with attacks upon Jews far outstripping those on Muslims in 2012 (674 to 130).  Western states in the past have also often aided their Muslim minorities and Muslim countries, such as when the British government donated land for the United Kingdom’s first mosque, London Central Mosque.

The “Islamophobia” campaign, moreover, manifests the distorted subordination of human rights to Islamic sharia law present throughout the OIC’s 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.  Therein rights such as free speech may not contradict the Koranic phrase “what is good” according to Islam.  Similar distorted sectarianism is evident in the juxtaposition of OIC documents on “Combating Islamophobia” internationally and OIC-supported UN resolutions such as 16/18 in the Human Rights Council advocating religious equality.

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition

Also see: Video: Mark Durie on the OIC and Free Speech Implications of a Proposed Ban on “Islamophobia (counterjihadreport.com)

Video: Mark Durie on the OIC and Free Speech Implications of a Proposed Ban on “Islamophobia

oic conferenceHudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom:

(Very good Q&A begins at 34:00)

“Islamophobia” is a widely used yet vague and controversial term referring to anti-Muslim bigotry. In recent years, identifying, monitoring, reporting on, and working to ban Islamophobia worldwide has been a major focus of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

The OIC is an international body of 56 member states that is based in Saudi Arabia and active within the United Nations. While the United States has formally recognized its work in the past – US ambassadors have observed its sessions and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-chaired some of its meetings – American awareness of the organization remains scant.

In 2007, the OIC began issuing regular “observatory” reports on Islamophobia, and since 2009 has published monthly bulletins that cite primarily Western examples of Islamophobia.

Is Islamophobia a serious problem, or is the term itself an ideological cudgel designed to incite fear and criminalize dissent? Dr. Mark Durie discussed these and other basic questions related to the OIC’s efforts to ban Islamophobia. Click here for his PowerPoint.

Mark Durie is an Anglican pastor, theologian, author, and human rights activist. A fellow of the Australian Academy for the Humanities, he is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, a Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Islam and Other Faiths at the Melbourne School of Theology, and the Director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness.

Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Religious Freedom Nina Shea moderated this discussion.

For more videos of Mark Durie go here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL56A31DB2DE8D692D and http://vimeo.com/search?q=mark+durie

The OIC “Organizes” for Censorship

20131215_oic_logo_large

There is no mention in the report of the countless attacks on Christian churches or Jewish synagogues by Muslims. No mention in it of the countless physical attacks on Christians or Jews by Muslims. No mention of the murders committed by Muslims of non-Muslims. No mention of the countless rapes of non-Muslim women by Muslims in European countries. No mention of the nonstop, formulaic verbal abuse, libels, slanders, demonizations, and denigrations of Jews or Christians by Muslims in print or in person. No mention of the standard, stereotyping caricatures of Jews as drooling vampires by Muslims, or of the constant vilification of Jews as descendents of apes and pigs.

by EDWARD CLINE:

I begin this column with a quotation from Soren Kern’s Gatestone article of December 11th, “OIC Blames Free Speech for ‘Islamophobia’ in West“:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an influential bloc of 57 Muslim countries, has released the latest edition of its annual “Islamophobia” report.

The “Sixth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia: October 2012-September 2013” is a 94-page document purporting to “offer a comprehensive picture of Islamophobia, as it exists mainly in contemporary Western societies.”

But the primary objective of the OIC-headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by dozens of Muslim countries that systematically persecute Christians and Jews-has long been to pressure Western countries into passing laws that would ban “negative stereotyping of Islam.”

I’ve written in the past about the OIC’s continuing campaign to insulate Islam from serious and satirical criticism herehere, and here in its call for international censorship. In this column I will discuss some angles Kern does not emphasize or discuss in his column.

The OIC report is unique in that it is illustrated and features photographs of individuals the OIC has found guilty of “Islamophobia,” images of “offensive” newspaper headlines and photographs, and even of “defamatory” FaceBook pages and “tweets” that identify the alleged criminals. These can be found between pages 10 to 83, which constitute the bulk of the report and represent a “catalogue of crimes.”

Kern writes, in reference to the OIC report:

But the common thread that binds the entire document together is the OIC’s repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for “the institutionalization of Islamophobia” in Western countries is freedom of speech, which the OIC claims has “contributed enormously to snowball Islamophobia and manipulate the mindset of ordinary Western people to develop a ‘phobia’ of Islam and Muslims.”

According to the OIC, freedom of expression is shielding “the perpetrators of Islamophobia, who seek to propagate irrational fear and intolerance of Islam, [who] have time and again aroused unwarranted tension, suspicion and unrest in societies by slandering the Islamic faith through gross distortions and misrepresentations and by encroaching on and denigrating the religious sentiments of Muslims.”

“Freedom of expression” occurs six times in the document, while “freedom of speech” occurs only once. Not that it makes a difference which term the document employs. (Hillary Clinton would agree.)  The term “hate speech” occurs fifteen times, while “hate crime” was used thirty-five times, most frequently in the “catalogue of crimes.” The OIC demanded that Islam be “respected” seventeen times, and cited the importance of “interfaith dialogue” twenty-one times, even though such “dialogue” notoriously is set on Islamic terms and can go only one way, with concessions made by Christians and Jews, and none made by Muslims.

The term “toleration” and its variants, such as “intolerance,” occur fifty-seven times in the document. What this means in practice is that Western societies must “tolerate” the depredations of Islam and “accommodate” Muslims at the price of Western civil liberties, while any resistance or criticism of Islam’s ideology and practices, such as primitive Sharia law, can be designated as bigoted “intolerance.”

Islamophobia, as Kern points out, is a “nebulous term” invented for the purpose of defaming the knowledge and certainty that Islam is primarily a political nemesis of totalitarian character and that Islam does not tolerate dissension from its tenets or the existence of other creeds.

According Robert Spencer and David Horowitz’s 2011 publication, Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future:

 …A front group – the International Institute for Islamic Thought – invented the term “Islamophobia.

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad is a former member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought.  He was present when the word “Islamophobia” was created, but now characterizes the concept of Islamophobia this way: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them.

The term occurs in the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” which details the means and ends of introducing Islam in the U.S. with the long-term end of colonizing it with immigrant Muslims and gradually and stealthily transforming it into an Islamic state. Kern quotes from the OIC report:

Islam and Muslims have increasingly been portrayed as representing violence and terror that seek to threaten and destroy the values of Western civilization and that the Muslim way of life is incompatible with Western values of human rights and fundamental freedoms. For Muslims, Islamophobia is a deliberate scheme to distort the teachings and principles of peace and moderation engrained in Islam. As part and result of this scheme, Muslims tend to be collectively accused for any violence that erupts in society and are seen as ipso facto potential suspects well ahead of any investigation. This negative stereotype causes Muslims to be subjected to indignity, racial discrimination and denial of basic human rights. (p. 11, OIC report)

Islam and Muslims are justifiably associated with violence and terror and as a threat to Western civilization. That is, after all, an article of faith expressed in the Muslim Brotherhood memorandum of 1991.

The Ikhwan [the Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

And over all other ideologies, beliefs, and principles. There will be no arguing the point. Kern goes on about how that “grand jihad” is being carried out by calling for restrictions on speech that castigate or criticize Islam, and quotes from the report:

The chapter further underscores that increased hate speech and discrimination against Muslims is a major factor behind the rise of the phenomenon of Islamophobia. In this context, acceptance of various forms of intolerance, including hate speech and the propagation of negative stereotypes against Islam and Muslims in some western countries contribute towards proliferation of intolerant societies. This process is further supported by three main manifestations, namely: the exploitation of freedom of expression and perpetuation of an ideological context advocating an inescapable conflict of civilizations; the right wing parties have politicized Islamophobia and instrumentalized fear in the context of growing socio-economic instability as well as the erosion of human rights in the name of national security and the fight against terrorism. (p. 7, OIC report)

The report claims that the news media is largely responsible for contributing to the alleged environment of fear and trepidation experienced by Muslims.

…the negative role played by major media outlets who not only propagate stereotypes and misperceptions about Islam, but also undermine and usually keep shadowed any meaningful instance of individuals or groups speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred and violence. This biased approach of the media has helped drawing an emphatically demonized, sometimes dehumanized, image of Muslims in the minds of a certain class of people which is predisposed to xenophobic feelings due to the increasingly dire economic situation, or the simply to the irrational fear of the other. (p. 15)

This is one of the most absurd claims of the report. The mainstream news media has not authored or perpetuated a “negative” stereotype of Islam and Muslims. Quite the contrary, it has instead largely white-washed Islam as a matter of editorial and journalistic policy, and denied that Islam has any causo-connection with Islamic terrorism, or has gone through evasive mental contortions to the same effect. If the news media has any “biased approach” to reporting news about Islam, it is in favor of Islam. One would need to search long and hard to find any major news media organization broadcasting any “negative” stereotypes or misperceptions about Islam.

Read more at Family Security Matters