Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media can’t escape responsibility: Washington Post

After a “lone wolf” Islamist militant attack, the media invariably ask: What inspired him to kill? Usually the answer is found in Islamist militant propaganda. We need to ask the same question about right-wing terrorism. What inspired Cesar Sayoc to allegedly send mail bombs to prominent liberals? What inspired Robert Bowers to allegedly gun down 11 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue? What inspired Gregory Bush to allegedly kill two African Americans in Jeffersontown, Ky., after failing to enter a predominantly black church?

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/11f0fb68-dbab-11e8-8bac-bfe01fcdc3a6

To ask these questions in no way obviates the perpetrators’ ultimate responsibility for the evil that they do. But terrorists do not operate in a vacuum. So who created the environment in which right-wing terrorism has become far more commonplace — and, since 9/11, far more deadly — than Islamist terrorism in America?

President Trump — by championing “nationalism,” denouncing “globalists” such as Jewish financier George Soros, vilifying immigrants as “snakes” and “animals,” fear mongering about a refugee caravan and defending white supremacists as “fine people” — bears a substantial share of the blame.

Some of his Republican followers are even more extreme. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) brought a Holocaust denier to the State of the Union and has blamed Soros for financing a Central American immigrant caravan. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) gave an interview to a far-right Austrian website in which he endorsed the white-supremacist claim that white nations are committing “slow-motion cultural suicide” by allowing in immigrants of color.

Even GOP leaders are joining in. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) posted and then deleted a tweet accusing Soros, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer of buying the election. (Soros and Bloomberg are Jewish; Steyer is an Episcopalian whose father was Jewish.) Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blamed Soros for funding protests against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Where do these politicians get these noxious ideas? From a right-wing media industrial machine that includes Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit and many other outlets. It was Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business Network who asked Grassley if Soros was behind the Kavanaugh protests — and after Grassley endorsed the charge, Trump gave it his imprimatur. The Wall Street Journal, in turn, ran an op-ed endorsing this calumny. Last week, Fox Business host Lou Dobbs interviewed Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch, who claimed that the Central American caravan was directed by the “Soros-occupied State Department,” echoing neo-Nazi propaganda about a “Zionist-occupied government.” (Fox Business has since apologized.)

Fox News isn’t just vilifying a major Jewish donor to liberal causes. It is also demonizing all Democrats — literally. Host Jeanine Pirro refers to them as “demon rats.”

This nonstop drumbeat of over-the-top invective and irrational conspiracy theories can drive otherwise sane conservatives to extremism — and it can drive those who were already unstable to violence. The New York Times reports that until 2016, Cesar Sayoc’s Facebook page was full of “decadent meals, gym workouts, scantily clad women and sports games. . . . But that year, Mr. Sayoc’s social media presence took on a darker and more partisan tone.” That’s when he began posting “stories from Infowars, World Net Daily, Breitbart and other right-wing websites,” which “showed a fascination with Islamist terrorism, illegal immigration and anti-Clinton conspiracy theories.”

Naturally, when Sayoc sent letter bombs to Trump’s critics, the right-wing media claimed it must be a “false flag” operation. Once the preserve of the paranoid radio host Alex Jones, this lunacy is now propagated by the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Dinesh D’Souza, Frank Gaffney, Donald Trump Jr. and Michael Savage. D’Souza tweeted: “Fake sexual assault victims. Fake refugees. Now fake mail bombs. We are all learning how the media left are masters of distortion, deflection & deception.” Trump himself appeared to give winking support to this crackpot theory by referring to “this ‘Bomb’ stuff.” Even after Sayoc’s arrest, few “false flag” theorists recanted or apologized.

There is partisanship on both sides of the political spectrum, but no left-wing outlets propagate extremism as successfully or widely as conservative media do. A new study of “Network Propaganda” by three Harvard researchers notes that liberals, by and large, get their news from sources such as The Post, the Times, NPR and CNN that, regardless of any political bias, also engage in rigorous fact-checking. Conservatives, by contrast, are being brainwashed by right-wing media that are an “echo chamber” for “rumor and conspiracy theory.”

The frightening thing is that the right-wing media will be here long after Trump and the current crop of Republican politicians are gone. These outlets have a First Amendment right to say what they want, but investors and advertisers also have a right to take their dollars elsewhere. If Rupert Murdoch and his sons won’t rein in its extremist propaganda, advertisers should flee Fox, and investors should flee its parent company, 21st Century Fox. Its stock should become as toxic as shares of mining companies that produce “blood diamonds.” The propagandists and politicians who are radicalizing the American right must not be allowed to escape responsibility for the dangerous consequences of their actions.

By : By Max Boot

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ask-the-questions-about-right-wing-terrorists-that-we-ask-about-islamist-militants/2018/10/28/64403b32-daec-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_term=.592904ba92d5

The Latest: Dutch lawmaker cancels Muhammad cartoon contest – The Washington Post

Dutch premier distances govt from anti-Islam cartoon contest

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The Dutch prime minister on Friday distanced his government from a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest being organized later this year by anti-Islam lawmaker Geert Wilders.

Wilders “is not a member of the government. The competition is not a government initiative,” Prime Minister Mark Rutte said at his weekly press conference.

Rutte’s comments came after angry reactions in Pakistan to the proposed contest, which Wilders plans to hold in November in his right-wing Party for Freedom’s heavily guarded offices at the Dutch parliament.

Authorities in Pakistan have lodged a diplomatic protest against Wilders’ plan, calling it an attempt to defame Islam.

Opposition lawmaker Wilders is well known for his fierce criticism of Islam and has previously sparked fury in Muslim nations with a film about Islam. He lives under a round-the-clock guard following years of death threats.

Physical depictions of God or the Prophet Muhammad, even respectful ones, are considered blasphemous under mainstream Islamic tradition.

Rutte questioned Wilders’ motive for organizing the contest, saying “his aim is not to have a debate about Islam. His aim is to be provocative.”

However, he added that people in the Netherlands have far-reaching freedom of speech rights.

“This man, Geert Wilders, is known for testing the limits of freedom of expression. He is free to do that,” Rutte said. “The Cabinet wants to make clear it is not a Cabinet initiative.”

In a tweet, Wilders said the reaction of Rutte and the Dutch foreign minister “show that we are ruled by Islam cuddlers.” He said the contest was not meant as a provocation “but to show that we do not bargain with our freedom.”

Source: https://apnews.com/7b857dd4c94f4252ab4a0ac43405b147

Muslims and Africans got World Cup for France … Stop Islamphobia

Is Islam the only way to talk about Christian fundamentalism? | USA | Al Jazeera

Is Islam the only way to talk about Christian fundamentalism?
aljazeera.comJune 26, 2018 08:04 AM

If we are to speak to today’s destructive political moment, then let us do so with critical inquiry, honesty, and rigor, writes Kanjwal
Photo by: Intercept/Youtube
We really need to talk about Mehdi Hasan’s latest video for the Intercept.

In the clip titled, Caliph Donald Trump and the Rise of the Christian Taliban, broadcaster and journalist Hasan spends nearly four minutes warning his viewers about the “Christian Taliban”, or the “Bible-thumping fundamentalists who are bent on theocratising the US government.”

Using Islamic terminology, Hasan raises the alarm about the policies of the Christian right. For instance, he argues that they want “sharia law”, of the “Biblical variety”, and then goes on to speak of the multiple “mullahs” in the Trump administration, ending with “Caliph Trump” himself. In the video, Hasan also compares the use of “To God be the Glory” by the Christian right to intervene in the secular legal system to the quintessential angry Muslim screaming “Allahu Akbar”.

Hasan is not the first person to invoke Islam when speaking of extremism within other religions. He is just part of a growing group of liberals and leftists who think it’s trendy to use Islam and Muslims as a prop against religious extremism around the world, and especially in the United States.

The use of comparisons is a quick and easy way to make a point and to appeal to moderates and liberals, who are often convinced that it is religious fundamentalism alone that is the source of all evils.

And certainly, religious fundamentalists of all stripes seek to use scripture to justify their actions. But whereas the intention of Hasan’s video, for instance, might have been to give a speedy (and clearly viral) lesson about the pervasive nature of religious extremism, his use of “the Muslim extremist” tropes and attempt to rely on Islamic terms is actually quite destructive.

Hasan’s video relegates Islamic terminologies, which Muslim leaders and scholars have been working hard to reclaim, to the inaccurate definitions advanced by Islamophobes. In turn, “mullah” – which simply refers to someone who is learned in Islamic law and theology – becomes synonymous with “religious bigot”.

Sharia – which is a way of life for Muslims – is equated with the right wing’s fixation on “sharia law,” or a myopic legal system that seeks to infringe on everyone’s rights.

Caliph – which means a civic and religious leader – becomes synonymous with a fascist ruler.

“Allahu Akbar” or “God is the greatest” – a phrase Muslims say during their daily prayers – is turned into a catch-all phrase embodying religious extremism.

In a more generous reading of Hasan’s video, one could see him suggesting that double standards exist in how people respond particularly negatively to Muslims who invoke religion. But herein lies the problem of this line of reasoning: what is, then, the standard that should apply? Is all expression of religion in the public sphere “bad”? Are we then to also speak of a Mullah Martin Luther King Jr?

In a global context that is predominantly defined by the so-called “war on terror” and rampant Islamophobia, operating a few Arabic words and injecting the fantasy of your favourite Christian fundamentalists dressed up in the black robes of the “mullah” figure is Orientalism at its best.

It is as if Hasan had forgotten everything he had ever written about the Iraq war, the killings of civilians by US drones, and the rise of the right in India to join ranks with a liberal, so-called “moderate crowd” (who of course would never kill civilians or deport en masse, or turn boats with refugees away, or intervene in other countries without legal justification).

What this approach does is merely perpetuate the trope of the unthinking, radical, fundamentalist Muslim – one who has no history and politics, but only zealotry that cannot be rationalised. It then transposes that figure into a completely different historical context.

Anti-Muslim racism has become so mainstream that the use of these tropes goes unquestioned, even by those who claim to combat it. How bad must US cultural literacy be that there is no way to discuss a domestic issue without invoking these Islamophobic tropes?

Another problem with this comparative approach is that it is historically selective. It establishes Islam as the gold standard for religious extremism. It is as if religious extremism can only be understood through the actions of Muslims and, in fact, it never existed before Islam itself.

Never mind that Christian fundamentalism has historically been joined at the hip with white supremacy, functioning as a key justification for slavery and colonialism.

Never mind that the very word “fundamentalism”, was itself a term coined in the early 20th century to describe the strict observation of certain Christian fundamentals and beliefs.

Why are the “mullahs” of Afghanistan then the obvious point of departure? If Hasan’s point is to educate people that religious fundamentalism and extremism exist outside of Islam, wouldn’t this then have been a perfect opportunity to root Christian fundamentalism in its own history and language that goes far beyond the abusive policies of the Trump administration? Why must Hasan deploy the Muslim bogeyman he has so often castigated?

In critiquing Trump’s America, Hasan also claims that, “as in the Middle East, to really politicise religion, you need a bunch of politicised clerics.” Again, the Middle East, which is now synonymous with Islam and Muslims, is deployed as the only space beyond rationality.

Surely Hasan must be aware that politicisation of religion in this erstwhile Middle East occurred while its populations endured colonialism by Western powers. Or that this process of politicisation continued under the auspices of the secularising, modernising postcolonial political leadership. Or that it is not just the clerics who “politicise religion”.

These absurd comparisons also undermine critical differences in context.

Christian fundamentalism in the US emerges in a majoritarian context, in a democratic country. Its closer parallel, then, is actually Hindutva, and not the Taliban. The armed group emerged out of a civil war that the US fuelled by supporting “religious fundamentalists” it called “freedom fighters” for fighting against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Or do the facts not matter when one is in search of the formula for that perfect viral video directed at a liberal class already in denial over its entrenched Islamophobia?

Such analogies also distract from substantive critiques.

In another example, The Guardian published a column in 2015 by British sculptor Anish Kapoor, who wrote that, “India (under Modi) was being ruled by a Hindu Taliban.”

And while Kapoor raised the concern of the assault on freedom of expression, dissent and the erosion of democratic values, as well as the battering of minority groups under India’s Hindu nationalist government, his column was met with outrage in India.

In leading papers, a number of columnists condemned his use of the term “Taliban”, contending that it was offensive to Hinduism itself.

Hinduism as a peaceful religion was unlike “the kind of society or culture implied in the word Taliban,” one columnist argued.

As a result, the critical issues that the Guardian article had raised were completely overlooked. People were more concerned that offended Hindus had been compared to Muslims; Hinduism’s “peacefulness” versus Islam’s “violence” could never be reconciled.

If we are to speak to today’s destructive political moment, then let us do so with critical inquiry, honesty, and rigour. Now – when people of all faiths and backgrounds need to question their own role in perpetuating extremism and terror – is not the time for simplistic overtures.

For Hasan, who has sought to combat Islamophobia, this video ironically harps on the most basic of Islamophobic tropes. Surely, there is no need to implicate Muslims whenever we speak about religious extremism.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/islam-talk-christian-fundamentalism-180625083426106.html

Is Islam the only way to talk about Christian fundamentalism?

Is Islam the only way to talk about Christian fundamentalism?
aljazeera.comJune 26, 2018 08:04 AM

If we are to speak to today’s destructive political moment, then let us do so with critical inquiry, honesty, and rigor, writes Kanjwal
Photo by: Intercept/Youtube
We really need to talk about Mehdi Hasan’s latest video for the Intercept.

In the clip titled, Caliph Donald Trump and the Rise of the Christian Taliban, broadcaster and journalist Hasan spends nearly four minutes warning his viewers about the “Christian Taliban”, or the “Bible-thumping fundamentalists who are bent on theocratising the US government.”

Using Islamic terminology, Hasan raises the alarm about the policies of the Christian right. For instance, he argues that they want “sharia law”, of the “Biblical variety”, and then goes on to speak of the multiple “mullahs” in the Trump administration, ending with “Caliph Trump” himself. In the video, Hasan also compares the use of “To God be the Glory” by the Christian right to intervene in the secular legal system to the quintessential angry Muslim screaming “Allahu Akbar”.

Hasan is not the first person to invoke Islam when speaking of extremism within other religions. He is just part of a growing group of liberals and leftists who think it’s trendy to use Islam and Muslims as a prop against religious extremism around the world, and especially in the United States.

The use of comparisons is a quick and easy way to make a point and to appeal to moderates and liberals, who are often convinced that it is religious fundamentalism alone that is the source of all evils.

And certainly, religious fundamentalists of all stripes seek to use scripture to justify their actions. But whereas the intention of Hasan’s video, for instance, might have been to give a speedy (and clearly viral) lesson about the pervasive nature of religious extremism, his use of “the Muslim extremist” tropes and attempt to rely on Islamic terms is actually quite destructive.

Hasan’s video relegates Islamic terminologies, which Muslim leaders and scholars have been working hard to reclaim, to the inaccurate definitions advanced by Islamophobes. In turn, “mullah” – which simply refers to someone who is learned in Islamic law and theology – becomes synonymous with “religious bigot”.

Sharia – which is a way of life for Muslims – is equated with the right wing’s fixation on “sharia law,” or a myopic legal system that seeks to infringe on everyone’s rights.

Caliph – which means a civic and religious leader – becomes synonymous with a fascist ruler.

“Allahu Akbar” or “God is the greatest” – a phrase Muslims say during their daily prayers – is turned into a catch-all phrase embodying religious extremism.

In a more generous reading of Hasan’s video, one could see him suggesting that double standards exist in how people respond particularly negatively to Muslims who invoke religion. But herein lies the problem of this line of reasoning: what is, then, the standard that should apply? Is all expression of religion in the public sphere “bad”? Are we then to also speak of a Mullah Martin Luther King Jr?

In a global context that is predominantly defined by the so-called “war on terror” and rampant Islamophobia, operating a few Arabic words and injecting the fantasy of your favourite Christian fundamentalists dressed up in the black robes of the “mullah” figure is Orientalism at its best.

It is as if Hasan had forgotten everything he had ever written about the Iraq war, the killings of civilians by US drones, and the rise of the right in India to join ranks with a liberal, so-called “moderate crowd” (who of course would never kill civilians or deport en masse, or turn boats with refugees away, or intervene in other countries without legal justification).

What this approach does is merely perpetuate the trope of the unthinking, radical, fundamentalist Muslim – one who has no history and politics, but only zealotry that cannot be rationalised. It then transposes that figure into a completely different historical context.

Anti-Muslim racism has become so mainstream that the use of these tropes goes unquestioned, even by those who claim to combat it. How bad must US cultural literacy be that there is no way to discuss a domestic issue without invoking these Islamophobic tropes?

Another problem with this comparative approach is that it is historically selective. It establishes Islam as the gold standard for religious extremism. It is as if religious extremism can only be understood through the actions of Muslims and, in fact, it never existed before Islam itself.

Never mind that Christian fundamentalism has historically been joined at the hip with white supremacy, functioning as a key justification for slavery and colonialism.

Never mind that the very word “fundamentalism”, was itself a term coined in the early 20th century to describe the strict observation of certain Christian fundamentals and beliefs.

Why are the “mullahs” of Afghanistan then the obvious point of departure? If Hasan’s point is to educate people that religious fundamentalism and extremism exist outside of Islam, wouldn’t this then have been a perfect opportunity to root Christian fundamentalism in its own history and language that goes far beyond the abusive policies of the Trump administration? Why must Hasan deploy the Muslim bogeyman he has so often castigated?

In critiquing Trump’s America, Hasan also claims that, “as in the Middle East, to really politicise religion, you need a bunch of politicised clerics.” Again, the Middle East, which is now synonymous with Islam and Muslims, is deployed as the only space beyond rationality.

Surely Hasan must be aware that politicisation of religion in this erstwhile Middle East occurred while its populations endured colonialism by Western powers. Or that this process of politicisation continued under the auspices of the secularising, modernising postcolonial political leadership. Or that it is not just the clerics who “politicise religion”.

These absurd comparisons also undermine critical differences in context.

Christian fundamentalism in the US emerges in a majoritarian context, in a democratic country. Its closer parallel, then, is actually Hindutva, and not the Taliban. The armed group emerged out of a civil war that the US fuelled by supporting “religious fundamentalists” it called “freedom fighters” for fighting against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Or do the facts not matter when one is in search of the formula for that perfect viral video directed at a liberal class already in denial over its entrenched Islamophobia?

Such analogies also distract from substantive critiques.

In another example, The Guardian published a column in 2015 by British sculptor Anish Kapoor, who wrote that, “India (under Modi) was being ruled by a Hindu Taliban.”

And while Kapoor raised the concern of the assault on freedom of expression, dissent and the erosion of democratic values, as well as the battering of minority groups under India’s Hindu nationalist government, his column was met with outrage in India.

In leading papers, a number of columnists condemned his use of the term “Taliban”, contending that it was offensive to Hinduism itself.

Hinduism as a peaceful religion was unlike “the kind of society or culture implied in the word Taliban,” one columnist argued.

As a result, the critical issues that the Guardian article had raised were completely overlooked. People were more concerned that offended Hindus had been compared to Muslims; Hinduism’s “peacefulness” versus Islam’s “violence” could never be reconciled.

If we are to speak to today’s destructive political moment, then let us do so with critical inquiry, honesty, and rigour. Now – when people of all faiths and backgrounds need to question their own role in perpetuating extremism and terror – is not the time for simplistic overtures.

For Hasan, who has sought to combat Islamophobia, this video ironically harps on the most basic of Islamophobic tropes. Surely, there is no need to implicate Muslims whenever we speak about religious extremism.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/islam-talk-christian-fundamentalism-180625083426106.html

COMPARE CHRISTIANITY TO ISLAM – False Comparison Exposed • Salaam One سلام

Christianity and Islam are two great Abrahamic religions. While there are many differences, there are also many commonalities, which can form basis for mutual peaceful coexistence. God urges the followers of three Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) to work on common grounds:

“Say: “O people of the Book! (Christians & Jews)Let us get together on what is common between us and you: that we shall worship none but God; that we shall not associate any partners with Him and that we shall not take human beings for our lords besides God;” If they turn away then tell them: “Bear witness that it is we who have surrendered ourselves unto Him (in Islam).”(Qur’an;3:64).  

People with no or little knowledge of Islam and Christianity, with malicious intentions draw false comparison between Islam and Christianity to deliberately misguide the people. The TRUTH exposes the false propaganda, the reader can himself draw the conclusions. Keep reading …. [………]

Related:

• 5 Ridiculous Things you Probably Believe About Islam
• Islam, Christianity & Judaism- Misconceptions
• Christianity and Islam-Commonalities:
• Islam & Christianity- A Brief Comparison
• Muslims Believe in Jesus Christ
• Islam-Renaissance of West
• Abrahamic Faiths-Commonalities
• Sarah, Hagar-Offsprings
• Jihad, Psycho-Religio Aspects
• A Dialogue With Neocons
• Islamophobia- 150 FAQs
• Delusions and Causes
• Quotes
• Rebuttal
• Islam – A Short Introduction:
• Christianity
• Jesus Christ, Christianity and Bible
• Jesus Christ
• Teachings
• Conspiracy to Kill & Ascent
• Evolution of Christianity by Paul
• Son of God
• Father (Abba) & God
• Aberrant Doctrines
• Paul- Apostle of Gentile
• Trinity & Polytheism
• Jesus and Divinity
• Original Sin, Atonement
• Expansion of Christianity
• Monotheism in Christianity
• Bible Refutes Church Doctrines
• Jesus Christ & Islam
• Was Jesus God?
• Christian Groups/Sects
• Initial impact of Islam on Christianity and West
• The Bible
• The Old Testament
• Torah and Talmud
• The New Testament
• Gospels (Injeel)
• Gospel of Jesus by Barnabas
• Monotheism in Bible
• Bible Prophesises Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
• Ben Israel to Ben Ishmael
• Trinity, Divinity of Jesus