Saturday, 5 August 2017
A California imam’s hate speech and incitement attract remarkably little mainstream media attention
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Imagine if a priest, minister
or rabbi were to call for Muslims to be annihilated. It would be a scandal and
it would spark a nation-wide controversy over Islamophobia, hate speech and
incitement to violence. So why is that not the case when an imam calls for the
annihilation of Jews?
On July 21, Ammar Shahin, the
Egyptian-born imam at the Islamic Center of Davis (ICD) and an instructor at
the Zidni Islamic Institute, both in California, preached from his pulpit: “The
Prophet Muhammad says that the time will come, the Last Hour will not take
place until the Muslims fight the Jews Oh Allah, liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque
from the filth of the Jews. Oh Allah, count them one by one and annihilate them
down to the very last one. Do not spare any of them. Oh Allah, make this happen
by our hands. Let us play a part in this.”
A video of the sermon was
released by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization that for almost two decades has provided access to
primary source materials from the “Muslim world,” translating such materials
from Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and other languages.
Stories soon appeared in the
Israeli press and right-of-center American news outlets such as Breitbart, The
Washington Times, the Washington Free Beacon, The Blaze and the Fox News
Channel. Left-of-center outlets, also known as mainstream media, apparently saw
nothing to report.
The ICD put out a press
release calling MEMRI “an extremist agenda driven organization” and claiming
that the Imam Shahin’s sermon had been “mistranslated” and taken “out of
context.” The imam told a local television reporter that it was “very sad to
hear that people are taking your words and they are twisting it around.”
In response, MEMRI pointed out
that it had posted the sermon uncut and unedited. There could be no question
about the accuracy of the translation. The prayer had referred specifically to
“the Jews” — not Israelis or Zionists. MEMRI also translated a sermon from July
14 in which Imam Shahin “made similar statements.”
On Thursday, the Los Angeles
Times did run a piece. Its reluctance to do so was apparent from the first
line: “A Northern California mosque that was targeted in a vandalism hate crime
found itself at the center of controversy this week after an imam delivered a
sermon with inflammatory remarks about Jews.” The vandalism — two bicycles
destroyed and bacon draped over a door handle — occurred in January. The woman
responsible was sentenced to five years’ probation. What this has to do with
the imam calling for the killing of Jews was not explained.
The Times went on to report
that local “Jewish and Muslim religious leaders spent four hours Thursday
looking to hash things out.” And, indeed, on Friday, Mr. Shahin and the ICD
changed their tune.
At a press event, the imam
said he was “deeply sorry for the pain that I have caused. The last thing I
would do is intentionally hurt anyone, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise. It is not
in my heart, nor does my religion allow it.”
The Washington Post reported on Mr. Shahin’s apology. Post religion
reporter Michelle Boorstein quoted him telling her: “It’s unfair when I have
spoken about nonviolence, and here is some two minutes. My record is very
clear, I have always been against violence.” To say that her article was
sympathetic toward him would be an understatement.
Imam Shahin also said he
regretted letting “my emotions get the best of me and cloud my better
judgment.” What roiled his emotions? On July 14, three terrorists killed two
Israeli Druze policemen on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site,
also the location of the Al Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site for Muslims.
The Israelis then installed metal detectors to enhance security. That set off
riots. The metal detectors have since been removed.
Allow me one paragraph of
modern history. The First Arab-Israeli war was fought in 1948. It ended with
Jordan occupying east Jerusalem, expelling Jews from the Jewish Quarter and
then desecrating and/or destroying Jewish holy sites, synagogues and
cemeteries. In the Six-Day War of 1967, Jordan attacked Israel from east
Jerusalem. The Israelis counterattacked, forcing the Jordanians to retreat. But
hoping to begin a peace process, the Israelis guaranteed Muslims “full freedom
of worship” and placed control of Al Aksa and the Temple Mount under the
custodianship of a Jordanian-based Islamic authority.
For Islamic supremacists (aka
Islamists) that’s insufficient. They want no Jews or other infidels sharing
sites to which Muslims lay claim. More broadly, they reject “two states for two
peoples” — the basis on which diplomats have attempted for decades to negotiate
a “two-state solution” to the conflict with Israel.
At the press event on Friday,
Mr. Shahin said he was committed to “defending religious rights in Jerusalem.”
That he is keen to do so for Muslims, I have no doubt. But what about Jews and
Christians?
He said he favors Muslims,
Jews and Christians peacefully coexisting. Does he mean just in America and
Europe or also in the Middle East? Jews were forced to flee from
Muslim-majority lands after World War II, and currently a genocidal campaign is
being waged against Christians, Yazidis and other Middle Eastern minorities.
What are his views on that? Does he believe Israel has a right to exist?
And by the way: Why did he
come to America? Why has he remained? Has he become an American citizen? If so,
what about America does he value?
At Friday’s press event, he
took no questions. Perhaps there are mainstream reporters working to get
answers. But most, the evidence suggests, are determinedly incurious.
Saturday, 5 August 2017
• Clifford
D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a
columnist for The Washington Times.
_____________________
I say, just as in Canada.
Just as in Canada where
Muslim clerics’ hate speeches attract little, if any, mainstream media
attention- unless that is the B’nai Brith shoves the media’s faces into it,
while the politicians and political elites avoid the subject in public and when
they do, they posture and utter platitudes keeping in mind that come general
elections they will need their votes and those of their congregations and
communities at large..
The sad fact of the matter
about these folks is that having internalised the fear of such clerics and
their supporters, they also taught themselves to repress them.
Yet, these same people cannot
repeat themselves enough extolling the virtues of multiculturalism and
diversity.
For both to survive in the
long run, it is imperative that there be zero tolerance hate speech. Each such
case must be investigated properly, the offenders charged and prosecuted with
vim and vigour and the Courts must sentence these criminals severely regardless
of their occupation and social status, in order to deter others.
No comments:
Post a Comment