February 25, 2006
Islamophobia of the New York Times stands exposed. The
ideas of its editors, expressed in its February 25, 2006 editorial are
so overtly Islamophobic that a Muslim writer, who was not moved by the
cartoon issue to write even a single paragraph, could hardly wait a
minute to respond to the Times editors.
The editorial is titled: "Silenced by Islamist rage." The New York Times
has hardly taken any time in the past many years to, at least, define
the Islamophobes invented term "Islamist." However, embracing this
terminology shows the anti-Islam of the paper and its editors.
The editorial begins with total rejection of the blasphemy, sorrow,
pain, insult and all associated aspects of the cartoons publication.
Instead it declares its verdict: "the protests are no longer about the
caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, but about the demagoguery of
Islamic extremists."
Interestingly, the very next sentence contracts this verdict: "The
demonstrators are undeniably outraged by what they perceive as
blasphemy." After initially rejecting and then accepting the fact that
the protests are about the blasphemous caricatures, the editorial sets
out its agenda and turns its guns towards "radical Islamists."
It says: "radical Islamists are trying to harness that indignation
to their political goals and their theocratic ends by fomenting hatred
for the West and for moderate regimes in the Muslim world. These are
dangerous games, and they require the most resolute response."
Alright! Before giving a resolute response to "radical Muslims," we need to have a look at the New York Times analysis. The question is: Who gave "radical Islamists" this opportunity to foment hatred?
Did "Islamists" go and convince Flemming Rose to publish the
blasphemous drawing so that they could take advantage of it. Or, is it
Flemming Rose who went to the US and got inspired with the philosophy
and anti-Islam hatred of the warlords? Didn’t it turn out that Fleming
Rose was a disciple of Daniel Pipes and the "clash of civilizations"
theory put out by Project for a New American Century?
Before holding "radical Muslims" responsible for the ongoing mess, did the New York Times editors try to find out what others have to say about Flemming Rose’s inspiration. Crhistopher Bollyn has the following in American Free Press (February 4, 2006) to share with us.
'Agents of certain persuasion’ are behind the egregious affront to
Islam in order to provoke Muslims, Professor Mikael Rothstein of the
University of Copenhagen told the BBC. The key "agent" is Flemming
Rose, the cultural editor of JP, who commissioned cartoonists to
produce the blasphemous images and then published them in Denmark's
leading morning paper last September. The International Herald Tribune,
which reported on the offensive cartoons on January 1, noted that even
the liberalism of Rose had its limits when it came to criticism of
Zionist leaders and their crimes. Rose also has clear ties to the
Zionist Neo-Cons behind the "war on terror."Rose told the international
paper owned by The New York Times that "he would not publish a cartoon
of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that
could be construed as 'racist.'" [...]Rose traveled to Philadelphia in
October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the
only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli
military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who
compares "militant Islam" with fascism and communism.[1]
It is now fully established that the New York Times has put
itself in the camp with Pipes and the rest of the neo-cons. It can see
the "dangerous games" of "Islamic radicals" in the street protests, but
it can hardly see the theocratic ends of its presidents and the
warlords surrounding him in their wars of aggression.
Speaking in the warlords’ language, the Times editors
argue: "It is not the West that is most threatened in this crisis. The
voices of moderation in the Muslim world are the ones that are being
intimidated and silenced. Those few journalists and leaders who have
spoken out against the rioting have been vilified and assailed, and
even jailed." At this point, readers expect the editors to give example
of the journalists who were jailed only for opposing the rioting.
Instead, like tabloid journalists, the Times editors come up
with examples which do not have anything to do with "moderation" or
what it states about jailing of some journalists.
After making the horrible statement that the voices of moderation
are being threatened and silenced because of the "Islamic radicals,"
the Times gives this irrelevant example: "According to a report by Michael Slackman and Hassan M. Fattah in The New York Times,
11 journalists in five Islamic countries face prosecution for printing
some of the Danish cartoons, even when their purpose was to condemn
them." Are we to assume that the Times editors are stupid
enough not to see the difference between criticizing street protests
and actually re-publishing these insulting cartoons.
The Times argues one thing and gives example of another.
No, they are not stupid. We are actually witnessing the height of
deception and hypocrisy. Since when condemnation of an act needs the
person who is condemning to actually commit the same act? If these
journalists were condemning the publication of the blasphemous
cartoons, as per the Times editors, it is highly unlikely that they would have chosen to re-publish them.
The Times editors move on to argue that it is the "cowed
authorities" in the Muslims world and the Islamists’ "turning up the
heat" that consolidate "the perception of a 'clash of civilizations’
between Islam and the West." One may ask the editors: Who have coined
the phrase "a clash of civilizations" in the first place? The much
demonized "Islamic radicals" or the most reverend intellectuals in the
United States?
Is it the "Islamic radicals" who are imposing their "way of life"
through wars of aggression and occupations? According to the standards
of Islamophobes, there is no Muslim, who could be described more
radical than Osama bin Laden. Even he has not said the West has to live
by the way of life he believes is right. It is actually the other way
round. All the statements glorifying the Western way of life and the
actions to impose Western values on the Muslim world through genocidal
sanctions and wars of aggression are coming from the West.
The most "radical" statements, coming out of the Muslim world, are
not saying the West has to live the way of Islam whether it likes it or
not. The "extremists" merely say, leave Muslims alone. Give them their
right to self-determination and self-rule. The extremists say, don’t
impose your values and way of life and puppets on Muslims. They say,
don’t support the repressive regimes of Musharraf, Mubarak and Karimov,
which the Times calls "moderate regimes." This must be sufficient to show who is promoting the clash and who is on the defensive.
The most obnoxious observation of the Times comes towards
the conclusion of the editorial: It says: "It is time for moderate
Muslims to abandon the illusion that they can placate the Islamists by
straddling the fence. It is they who must explain to their people that
the cartoons were an isolated incident, and not the face of hostile
crusaders. It is they who must make it clear to their people that
blowing up mosques, beheading hostages and strapping on belts of
explosives are far, far greater evils than a few drawings in a distant
paper. They must do so because their future is at stake — not
Denmark's."
What the self-proclaimed "moderate" Muslims need to understand is
that they can never please Islamophobes until they say good bye to
their faith and start living by the religious values and way of life of
the Islamophobes. It is becoming abundantly clear from the latest
developments in the West. The message to Muslims is clear: assimilate
(read: apostacize) or leave.[2]
It is the hypocrisy and cunningness of the New York Timesat
its peak to call the cartoons "an isolated incident." This is not an
isolated incident when looked in the context of what is really
happening all around us and to which the Times turns a blind
eye. Following are just a few examples of what actually turned the
cartoon issue into a burning fuse for the simmering discontent. If
publishing the blasphemous cartoons an isolate issue:
- What about the US military officials flushing the Qur’an down the toilets? That too was an isolated incident.
- How about the bans on Islamic religious symbols, such as veil in France and elsewhere?
- How about the Italian minister putting on cartoons of Mohammad’s (pbuh) on his T-shirts. [3] This, too, is an isolated incident.
- How about the Vatican’s warning against marrying Muslims? [4] That is another isolated incident.
- How about the Congress, threatening to cut off funding to
collegiate Mideast Studies departments that refuse to toe the
neoconservatives’ line? [5]
- How about the Proposed ID System For Muslims In Manila? [6]
- How about the negative image of Muslims and Islam in the media
which results in the news-reports such as "Bias Against Muslims Up by
70%,[7] "U.S. Muslims' Harassment Complaints Up," [8] "Anti-Muslim
Incidents Rise, Study Finds" [9] and 75% of Muslims fear terrorist
label: survey (June 21, 2004)? [10]
- How about reports elsewhere such as "Muslims report increased abuse
in Australia after September 11," [11] "Italian Muslims Lament
Marginalization, Oppression" [12] and "Muslim names harm job chances"?
[13]
All these isolated incidents and pieces come together to make the
bigger picture of a Western world rife with Islamophobia. The street
protest in the Muslim world are mere a reaction to this Islamophobia.
There is absolutely no cause for anti-Westernism in Islam or
mis-interpretation of its sources other than the words and deeds of the
few Islamphobes and warlords in power in the West.
Most importantly, almost all the above references are from the
"mainstream" media and are undeniable facts. These facts show that
insulting cartoons are not just an isolated incident. Islamophobia is
getting mainstream in the West. A 350-words editorial from the New York Times cannot conceal the reality on the ground. A film from BBC effectively exposes Islamophobia in UK (July 15, 2004).[14]
The BBC documentary showed members of the British National Party
saying: "That's the way that this wicked, vicious faith has expanded
through a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago until it's
now sweeping country after country." One BNP member expressing a wish
to blow up mosques with a rocket launcher and to machine-gun
worshippers with "about a million bullets." It is not only the state of
mind of the politicians in UK. In Netherlands, Dutch politicians bask
in Islamophobia[15] and analysts in the United States are proposing
internment of Muslims.[16]
It is as sad as it is shocking to see the New York Times telling Muslims that cartoons are an isolated incident. This exposes the rotten Islamophobic core of the New York Times.
It ignores what has been piling up since centuries of colonial
adventures and which is intensifying in the last 10-15 years. If we
start counting these isolated incidents, the list may never come to an
end. Each incident is serious in itself. For example, the July 19, 2004
report that "Islam to be banned in Norway."[17]
Similarly, the recent Guardian report that Christian groups are
seeking ban on the Qur’an?[18] The list will go on and on. Starting
from paving the way to ban Muslim in flights[19] to books which promote
discrimination against Muslims[20] and the signs reading "We must
remember Islam is the enemy,"[21] there is no aspect of life in which
Muslims are not deliberately targeted for humiliation and subjugation.
Nothing can be more misleading and hypocritical on the part of the New York Times than stating that the cartoons are an isolated incident.
To respond to the final argument of the editorial in which is says:
"It is they [moderate Muslims] who must make it clear to their people
that blowing up mosques, beheading hostages and strapping on belts of
explosives are far, far greater evils than a few drawings in a distant
paper. They must do so because their future is at stake — not
Denmark's," one can only ask a simple question from the editors: Why
were there no blowing up of mosques, beheadings and suicide bombings in
Iraq before the US invasion and occupation? Were not Iraqi reeling
under Saddam’s tyranny as we are told by the US? Was not Islam there to
make Iraqis radical? Why didn’t they mis-interpret Islam then? Whey did
these radical not radicalized others then? Was life more dear to Iraqis
then and not now? The answer to these questions shows that the forces
of radicalization lie in Washington—in the double standards and unjust
foreign policies of the Western countries—and not in Mecca, the Qur’an
or Islam.
Blaming something non-existent—Islamism and Islamists—cannot save
the warlords in the West from the flames of hatred and war that they
have ignited in the Muslim world. There are no Islamists and moderate
Muslims. There are only opportunists and collaborators of different
shades among Muslims, who have to come up with justification for their
supporting the warlords in the West. Their justifications do not become
a new form of "moderate" Islam.
Similarly, there are others, who directly suffer due to oppression
and repression perpetrated or sponsored by the West. They don’t have
any option but to stand up against their enslavement. They do not
become "radical" or "Islamists," nor their resistance to injustice
becomes another form of "radical" Islam. Masking the reality with these
Islamophobic terms and phrases will only expedite the clash which the New York Times is blaming on Muslims.
------------------------------------------------
Abid Ullah Jan's latest book,"The Musharraf Factor: Leading Pakistan to Inevitable Demise" was released in December 2005. Please, click here for Introduction. Follow this link to read a chapter from the book. His book, "Afghanistan: The Genesis of the Final Crusade," will be released shortly.
Notes:
[1]. http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=508448
[2]. Muslims who want to live by Islamic Law have no place in Australia. Associated Press, February 24, 2006.
Also see: Muslims Must Take Homophobia Test. GayNZ.com, January 04, 2006.
http://www.gaynz.com/news/default.asp?dismode=article&artid=
3082.
Also see this link
(http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jan2006/germ-j18.shtml).
And http://canada.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/27409
[3]. Reuters, Crispian Balmer Tue Feb 14, 2006.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060214/wl_nm/religion_cartoons_
italy_dc_1
[4]. ROME, Dec. 26, 2005 (UPI) -- A number of Catholic cardinals are warning Italian women against marrying Muslims.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-
20051226-23004600-bc-italy-mixedmarriage.xml ...
[5]. Associate Press: "Muslims Face Scrutiny Ahead of Olympics," report by Derek Gatopoulos, March 23, 2004.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/48-03232004-269417.ht
ml
[6] Rexcel Sorza,"Proposed ID System For Muslims In Manila Spurned," March 23, 2005.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-03/23/article04
.shtml
[7]. Mary Beth Sheridan, "Bias Against Muslims Up 70%," The Washington Post, May 3, 2004.
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=3316.
[8]. CBC Report: Report: Muslim Harassment Up.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/03/national/main61519
6.shtml
and http://www.adn.com/24hour/nation/story/1335662p-8518415c.htm
l
[9]. Anti-Muslim Incidents Rise, Study Finds, 2003.
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=144917 and
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-muslims3may03,1,1762
658.story
[10]. 75% of Muslims fear terrorist label: survey, Jun 18 2004 11:35 AM EDT.
http://www.cbc.ca/ottawa/story/ot_muslim20040618.html
CBC News
[11]. Muslims report increased abuse in Australia after September 11.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/
90227/1/.html
[12]. Italian Muslims Lament Marginalization, Oppression
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-06/22/article0
2.shtml
[13]. Hugh Muir, "Muslim names harm job chances," Guardian, July 12, 2004. The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/race/story/0,11374,1259075,00.html
[14]. "Film exposes political Islamophobia," Al-Jazeera, July 16, 2004, 16:00 Makka Time, 13:00 GMT
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66EB1FAE-E44A-4FC0-82
DA-D12AD5085041.htm
[15]. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/528BD62C-6EAC-47D9-89
5D-F15DF8115894.htm
[16]. Neoconservatives push internment for American Muslims:
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1818.shtml
[17]. "Dutch politician basks in Islamophobia," November 21, 2004, 23:41 Makka Time, 20:41 GMT http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article254421.ece
Also see, KRISTIANSAND, NORWAY: "Right-wing politicians want to ban Islam July 19, 2004.
http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article254421.ece
[18]. Stephen Bates and Julian Glover, "Christian group may seek ban on Qur'an," Guardian, October 12, 2005
The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1589960,00.html
[19]. Washington Times, July 23, 2004. ù
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040721-101403-1508r.htm
[20]. Hussein Ibish "Book seems to urge discrimination in US against Arabs, Muslims, Scholars say that, despite her personal claims, Michelle Malkin's evidence, logic are flawed." Daily Star. August 24, 2004.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_
id=2&article_id=7654
[21]. Islam Sign Outside Latrobe-Area Church Stirs Controversy ThePittsburghChannel - Sept 17, 2004.
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/3739274/detail.html
