by Igor Slamoff
A review of Islamophobia in the Media, by Bashy Quraishy, Tomas Deltombe and Michael Privot. Speeches given at a meeting in
in 2006 organised by the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student
• Bashy Quraishy: President of ENAR (European Network Against Racism) - Belgium; Chief Editor of Media Watch; Member Board of Trustees of More colour in the media - Holland; Member Board of Trustees of Centro de Estudos Multiculturais - Portugal
• Michael Privot: Islamologist; vice president of FEMYSO (Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations)
• Thomas Deltombe: Journalist, diploma at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris and DEA in contemporary history ; author of L'islam imaginaire : La construction médiatique de l'islamophobie en
1975-2005 (2005), Editions La Découverte. France
Quraishy wrote the lead article, called Media’s role in cementing Islamophobia. His thesis is that “… the greatest challenge facing us [i.e. Mohammedans in
is the biased media coverage.”
Perhaps he is right. However, his article betrays some seriously muddled thinking:
“High unemployment, societal marginalisation, concentration in socially deprived areas, lack of a dialogue and rise in Islamophobia are the net results of this one-sided media coverage.”
The claim that the media often encourage bias against Islam is a familiar one and in certain cases is undoubtedly accurate. But this is the first time I have read anyone blame media bias for Moslems’ unemployment and their living in overcrowded European slums.
Nonetheless, NOT everything Quraishy writes is nonsense, and he backs his claims up with hair-raising quotes from Danish and other media that leave us in no doubt that a substantial portion of the ill-will against Mohammedans in the West is actually simply old-fashioned prejudice and not alarm at the homicidal teachings and practice of Islam’s founder.
However the opinion poll figures that Quraishy quotes clearly show that the homicidal teachings outweigh simple prejudice by a considerable margin.
When Quraishy deplores “erosion of civil liberty due to excessive linking of terrorism and Islam” he is admitting that Mohammedan terrorism is at the root of much ill-will. He quotes a Turkish diplomat who deplores the
bombings of April 2004 that killed about 200 Spaniards: “In the post-Madrid
stage, I regretfully notice a repeated tendency to equate violence and
terrorism with a religion, namely Islam, especially in the mass media. Terms
such as “Islamic terrorism” is unfortunately abundant”. Madrid
Please note that what this Turkish Islamo-zombie deplores is NOT THAT IT KILLED 200 HUMAN BEINGS, BUT INSTEAD THE LOUSY PUBLICITY that the slaughter generated for Islam, the religion of its perpetrators. .
Quraishy himself carefully avoids associating Islam with terrorism in the following passage: " … resentment, as well as harassment and attacks on Muslims in the EU, have increased significantly after terrorists hit the
on 11 September 2001.” Note he
writes just plain “terrorists”, not “Islamic terrorists”. But to the extent
that they committed their crimes in Islam’s name, it is perfectly justified to
call them “Islamic terrorists”. Especially since Islamic traditions and scripture
furnish ample theological arguments for their crimes. US
I wonder what would happen if Southern Baptists were suddenly to start killing hundreds of people with bombs and similar equipment, justifying their crimes with religious arguments. How long would it take before the media started writing about “Southern Baptist terrorism”?
The title of a report issued by a Finnish human rights group (IHF) says it all: “Intolerance and discrimination against Muslims in the EU - Developments SINCE SEPTEMBER 2001”
Quraishy rashly quotes from the text of the report, offering us such jewels as: "As the fight against terrorism has been stepped up and the perceived threat of religious extremism has become a major focus of public debate, Muslims have increasingly felt that they are stigmatised because of their beliefs".
My remark: In other words, when some Mohammedans commit crimes in Islam’s name, in the public’s mind Islam becomes associated with crime.
Quraishy laments: “In Spain and Germany the level of hostility against Muslims has increased again after the terrorist attack in Madrid, in March 2004, the report shows. In the Netherlands, hostility rose after the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh.”
My remark: Yeah, well, what the hell did you expect? How come you think that unfair?
Quraishy laments: “ … for more than 80 percent of Germans the word "Islam" is associated to´terrorism’" ...
My remark: Strangely enough, the same is true of Egyptians. I read a statement by a former member of the Egyptian terrorist group Gama’a al islamiyya, according to which he and his terrorist buddies would pretend to be Christians in order to allay the suspicions of the Egyptian police. Once the policemen saw their crucifixes, they would lose interest in them and send them on their way.
Quraishy laments: “In Denmark, Media Watch Magazine [run by Quraishy himself] has monitored media coverage since 1995. Even if Muslim communities are less than 3% of the Danish population, they figure 35% in media debate and 65% of this coverage is negative.”
The meaning of the statement "Muslim communities … figure 35% in media debate” is unclear.
As for the 65% figure, in order to prove media bias, Quraishy would have to show that the so-called “negative” coverage was unwarranted. But he provides only one or two anecdotal examples of clearly unjustified attacks on Mohammedans. For example, in 2005 a Danish TV station presented a staged “interview” with 2 Muslim boys holding guns who said they belonged to a dangerous criminal ethnic gang called Triple X and boasted about taking over
violence. It later transpired that the boys had been promised that they would
be filmed for a music video. Denmark
Another case of blatant bias related by Quraishy: on a Danish talk show, a guest claimed that Mohammedans smell of urine.
I , Igor Slamoff, have personally known hundreds of Mohammedans, and I cannot recall a single one of them that smelled bad. Some of them smelled quite nifty, as a matter of fact. And most of them were thoroughly simpático as well.
I fully concur with Quraishy that these cases are clearly unwarranted “negative” coverage.
However, a few pages later, Quraishy tells us that “70% of all media coverage of Muslims in Denmark is concerned with crime, social problems, honour killings, fundamentalism, terror, forced marriages, lack of goodwill and a hatred of the Western values, democracy and human rights.”
Let us compare Quraishy’s two statements regarding media coverage of Muslims in
, namely Denmark
- "65% … is negative”, and
- “70% ... is concerned with crime, social problems, honour killings, fundamentalism, terror, forced marriages, lack of goodwill and a hatred of the Western values, democracy and human rights”
This seems to imply that the coverage is largely “negative” because the coverage describes aspects of Mohammedan beliefs and behavior that are grossly antisocial. In other words, what is “negative” is not the coverage, but the Mohammedans’ behavior.
PHONY MOHAMMEDAN OUTRAGE
This reminds me of the phony outrage recently exhibited by Mohammedans worldwide on release of the “Innocence of Muslims” movie. There was much talk of “defaming” Mohammed. I actually made a crude statistical analysis of a large random sample of the criticisms voiced regarding the movie. I found to my befuddlement that nobody – but NOBODY! -- actually said that the portrayal of Mohammed as a lecherous psychopath was inaccurate, false or erroneous. In other words, every blessed one of them tacitly admitted that Islam’s founder was a brazen criminal. They merely objected to someone saying so out loud. Their feelings were hurt.
Finally Quraishy gets around to stating the obvious: “But spreading of Islamophobia has also been helped by Muslim groups themselves. In recent years, some imams and other prominent Muslims have … [made] comments reflecting a controversial interpretation of Islamic teachings." And he proffers the welcome advice that “… Muslim communities must distance themselves from those inside tiny forces who have their own agenda based on ignorance.”
It is regrettable that Quraishy resorts to apologetic formulations like “a controversial interpretation of Islamic teachings”. Likewise to call bloodthirsty fanatics “inside tiny forces [presumably meaning “tiny internal forces”] who have their own agenda based on ignorance” seems to deny any legitimate scriptural basis to Mohammedan terrorism.
Robert Spencer, the publisher of the Jihad Watch web site, is often disparaged for his thesis according to which Mohammedan terrorists are quite right in claiming Koranic authority for their crimes.
I am pleased by Quraishy’s denunciation of Islamic terrorism. However , I agree with Robert Spencer that only by acknowledging Islam’s undeniable terrorist roots and extirpating them wholesale from their religion will moslems ever credibly banish the specter of terrorism from their midst.
In any case Quraishy is evidently opposed to Islamic extremism, and that is a very good thing. The same cannot be said for many others who denounce islamophobia. In 2011, the ostensibly progressive
for American Progress issued a shameless propaganda piece called Fear Inc.:
The Roots of the Islamophobia Network In . America
In an article, Silencing Critics of Islamic Extremism, published on David Horowitz’ right-wing Zionist FrontPage web site on August 29, 2011, Daniel Greenfield convincingly argues that Fear Inc. is not really intended to defend Moslems at all, but instead to silence critics of Islamic extremism. This is obvious the moment the authors of this smear piece, to wit undercover Moslem Brotherhood pimp Faiz Shakir and other miscreants, “do not limit their attacks to non-Muslims, but go after moderate Muslim critics of Islamic extremism as well,” such as Zuhdi Jasser, the head of the Islamic Forum for Democracy (cherished by the GOP). The CAP report states that Jasser “dangerously and incorrectly labels mainstream Muslim American organizations as subversive.”
“Dangerously”, huh? Dangerous for WHOM, prithee? That adjective seems to be a favorite of islamo-windbags working the islamophobia racket. Seems to be a way of softening up their victims for the kill.
Could that be an implied threat of violence, or is it my islamophobic paranoia talking?
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, MOTHER OF ALL SCUMBAGS
Thus these fearless investigative journalists have uncovered a completely unprecedented phenomenon: the Islamophobic Muslim, apparently the Mohammedan counterpart of the self-hating Jew. And why is Zuhdi Jasser Islamophobic? Because he opposes a certain “mainstream” Muslim organization. If that is the case, then that “mainstream” organization he opposes must represent the absolute culmination of Islamic perfection. What is its name, pray?
The Islamic Society of
America. Hmm. Rings a bell.
I look up this admirable mainstream organization and find that over 20 years ago, in 1991, it was identified as a front organization of the Islamofascist Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, by none other than a prominent MB apparatchik, Mohamed Akram, in an official report entitled “Strategic Goal for the Moslem Brotherhood in
least, that’s what the FBI claims.
The Moslem Brotherhood spokespersons embedded in CAP [i.e. Islamo-windbag-in chief Faiz Shakir & Co.] must think that all their readers are blithering idiots and will scrupulously refrain from checking any of the smarmy Fascist propaganda they excrete, thus tainting with the unmistakable stench of totalitarianism the otherwise fairly ethical output of the Center for American Progress.
The selfsame Muslim Brotherhood, by the way, is currently brutally imposing shariacrap law on
Unfortunately, there is much popular resistance and a lot of people are getting
killed. Oh, well, you can't make omelets without breaking eggs, as Stalin was
fond of saying. Egypt
So the real meaning of “islamophobia” turns out to be opposition, not to Islam as such, but to the Muslim Brotherhood and its myrmidons. Otherwise stated, the Monkey Boys are the true essence of Islam. Hey, wait a moment, isn’t that what Robert Spencer has been promulgating all these years to the universal dismay of the entire gamut of Islam groupies? Namely that the core of Islam is hatred, violence and oppression, such as we see in
now groaning under the jackboot of Mohammedan chauvinism? Egypt
Thus the doughty Robert Spencer's thesis is once again confirmed, this time from a completely unexpected quarter, namely the sleazy purlieus of that Mother of All Scumbags, the Muslim Brotherhood.
Another lying propagandist (or perhaps it's merely an Orwellian robot, since I could find no independent proof of his existence) whose voluble and hypocritical denunciations of alleged islamophobia are obviously mere pretexts in order to facilitate the establishment of Islamofascism in the West is one Brian Tashman. I shall deal with him or it at length on another occasion.
ARE MUSLIMS MORE VIOLENT AND CRIMINAL?
It is interesting to compare Quraishy’s statements with those of another privileged eyewitness to the plight of Mohammedans in Denmark, namely Nicolai Sennels, the Danish author of Report from the therapy room: Why are Muslims more violent and criminal? (found on Jihad Watch)
I quote from the article’s introduction:
“Nicolai Sennels (born 1976) is a psychologist, a popular lecturer about Muslim integration and gangs, and the author of Among Criminal Muslims. A Psychologist’s Experiences from
(Free Press Society, 2009). This article summarizes his experiences and
conclusions as a professional psychologist in the Copenhagen Municipality youth prison Sønderbro.” Copenhagen
In a nutshell, the conclusion that Sennels derives from his experience attending to the tender psyches of Mohammedan juvenile delinquents is that Mohammedan societies selectively encourage anger and violence as techniques for resolving conflicts. For Mohammedans, to act in a relaxed and reasonable way during a conflict situation is a sign of weakness and cowardice. For them it is important to exhibit rage and to resort to threats and actual violence in the early stages of any conflict.
According to Sennels, “Seven out of 10 inmates in Danish youth prisons ... are raised in Muslim families, Sennels writes. “The first seven or eight places on the top-10 list of criminals' nationality are occupied by immigrants from Muslim countries (Danes come in as number nine, followed by a long list of purely non-Muslim immigrants). … The crime statistics also show that crime rates among immigrants get worse, not better, in subsequent generations. Time does not heal the problems, on the contrary.”
So whom are we to believe? Quraishy or Sennels? Or some of both?
I shall leave it to the Gentile reader to figure that one out.
 I shall name these shameless disciples of Dr. Goebbels singly, so that their infamy outlives the mendacious disinformational sewage they busily concoct, ostensibly in the name of progress: Faiz Shakir, Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matt Duss, Scott Keyes and Lee Fang.