Why is this religion different than all the other religions?
I'm sure you've all noticed that the media treat Muslims differently than anyone else. Daniel Greenfield points out that as soon as there's a Muslim terror attack (is there any other kind?), the media immediately trots out 'fear of an anti-Muslim backlas
The massacre at Charlie Hebdo was quickly followed by a massacre at a
kosher supermarket and somewhere in between them the Islamic State in
Nigeria had wiped out the populations of sixteen villages.
With so many Muslim attacks crowded together, the media had no choice
but to take a deep breath and dive in with its “Muslim backlash”
The Voice of America ran its “Muslims fear backlash” piece while the
bodies were still warm. The Los Angeles Times rushed out its “Muslims
fear backlash” story before the Kosher supermarket massacre. It quoted
the Muslim spokesman for the National Observatory Against Islamophobia
asserting that it is Muslims who suffer after such attacks. Muslims
however weren’t the ones who suffered. The four dead Jews at a Kosher
supermarket did the suffering at the hands of a Muslim gunman.
While Muslim murderers were still prowling France for victims, the
media was making the story about the perpetrators, not the victims.
Is it really a backlash that Muslims fear or a moral reckoning?
In the rush to make bigots like Walid the victims, instead of the
actual men and women being murdered in the name of his violent ideology,
the hard questions about the connection between the historical Islamic
anti-Semitism bandied about by Dawud Walid and the modern massacres of
Jews go unasked.
The root cause of Islamic violence is Islam. Everything else, from poverty to YouTube videos, is subsidiary at best.
The cries of “Islamophobia” and the claims of a backlash silence the
victims of Muslim terror and encourage social blindness to the next
Muslim attack against Jews, Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and
The Muslim backlash story is a great media tradition that dates back
to at least September 11. While the streets of downtown Manhattan were
still streaked with the ashes of the dead, the media began running
stories about Muslims who were changing their clothes and putting up
American flags out of fear that the maddened patriotic rabble would
shortly begin massacring Muslims.
The mass anti-Muslim riots after September 11 never materialized;
just as they never materialized after the Sydney Siege in Australia or
the latest Muslim massacres in France.
It is that sense of self-pitying Muslim victimization that leads easily
to Muslim violence. Violence is often sanctioned by victimhood. That
Muslims believe themselves to be the victims is nothing new. The Nazis
also believed that they were the victims. So did the Muslim killer in a
Kosher supermarket who claimed that ISIS, with its mass rapes and
genocidal campaign, was the victim of French intervention.
Why does the media treat Islam differently? Dennis Prager says it's political correctness
Why did the Muslim terrorists go to a Jewish grocery? This is not a
riddle. We all know. But some in the media pretended they didn’t. During
the attack, a reporter for Sky News, one of the largest
English-language news services in the world, said on Fox News: “Whether
it was targeted specifically for its religious connotations it is
difficult to know.”
Is there one reader of this column who thought it “difficult to know” whether the Muslim terrorists targeted a Jewish grocery? Why would someone presumably intelligent say something so obviously stupid? In order to protect Islam.
as so many in the media and government did after Major Nidal Hasan’s
murder of 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. They found it difficult to
ascertain if religion was a factor in his murders, despite his yelling
“Allahu akbar” while shooting, despite his listing himself as a “Soldier
of Allah” on his Facebook page, and despite many other affirmations of
A New York Times writer blamed it on Major
Hasan’s “snapping” (in an article titled “When Soldiers Snap”). Chris
Matthews said “it’s unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting.”
NPR correspondent Tom Gjelten explained that Hasan, though never in
combat, may have suffered from “pre-traumatic stress disorder.”
And the U.S. Department of Defense classified the Fort Hood shootings
as acts of “workplace violence,” not terror, let alone Islamic terror.
the most egregious example of a society’s elites treating Islam
differently from all other religions took place in the U.K. Between 1997
and 2013, at least 1,400 girls, as young as eleven years old, in the
small English city of Rotherham (population 275,000), were repeatedly
gang-raped and treated as sex slaves. The U.K. government acknowledged
that these atrocities were allowed to go on due to the fact the
perpetrators were British Pakistanis and the girls were white. No one
was allowed to say that at the time. The author of a 2002 report
identifying Pakistanis as the perpetrators and organizers of the
Rotherham gang rapes and sex slavery was sent to diversity training.
Finally, why won’t the New York Times print even one Charlie Hebdo
cartoon? Twelve people were slaughtered over those cartoons; are the
caricatures not newsworthy? Of course they are. But they satirize Islam,
and that is not allowed.
Here’s the ultimate irony. These PC professors and news media who treat
Islam so much better than any other religion are literally Islamophobic.
They really fear Islam.
But what is it they fear about Islam? Is it just the violence? No. It's the fact that Islam proves over and over again that learning to empathize with the 'other' doesn't make them change their behavior. That means that the conflict between Islam and non-Islamic society cannot be resolved. The PC media elites (and the Left) cannot admit that there is any problem in society that they cannot resolve.
Labels: anti-Islamic backlash, Charlie Hebdo, France, Islam, Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia, mainstream media, Paris, political correctness