| 
 Al-Jazeerah History
 
 Archives
 
 Mission & Name
 
 Conflict Terminology
 
 Editorials
 
 Gaza Holocaust
 
 Gulf War
 
 Isdood
 
 Islam
 
 News
 
 News Photos
 
 Opinion 
	
	
	Editorials
 
 US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
 
 www.aljazeerah.info
 
	  
           |  | 
  Islamophobia Still Rising in the US With 
	  the Right's Help  By Steve RendallFair.org, March 12, 2012 
 
 
 The mainstreaming of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories
 When the Center for American Progress (CAP) released the report Fear, 
	Inc. in September (8/26/11), 
	alleging that U.S. anti-Muslim propaganda is largely driven by a well-funded 
	network of groups and individuals, confirmation of its claims came quickly. 
	Just four days after publication, the Fox Business Network aired a wildly 
	inaccurate two-part feature on Follow the Money (8/30/11) smearing the 
	report, its authors and Muslim Americans. Rupert Murdoch–owned media outlets 
	like FBN are among the country’s leading Islamophobic media organizations, 
	according to Fear, Inc.http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4499
 The first segment featured self-styled 
	terrorism expert Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on 
	Terrorism—named by CAP as one of the anti-Muslim network’s five key 
	formulators of propaganda, or “misinformation experts”—telling FBN host Eric 
	Bolling that “most of the Islamic organizations in the United States...are 
	run by the Muslim Brotherhood or created in the Muslim Brotherhood, a group 
	that believes in imposing Islam and Sharia around the world.” The suggestion 
	that the Muslim Brotherhood, whose connections to U.S. Muslim groups range 
	from historical to tenuous to nonexistent, is secretly connecting and 
	controlling “most of the Islamic organizations in the United States” is a 
	classic conspiratorial trope.
 
 Emerson also told Bolling that Fear, 
	Inc., “reminds me of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” referring to the 
	historic hoax alleging Jews were plotting world domination—missing the irony 
	that the report debunks conspiracy theories about Muslims that bear a 
	remarkable resemblance to classic anti-Semitism.
 
 But the suggestion 
	that Fear, Inc. was itself anti-Semitic was key to Fox’s attack. In the next 
	segment, Bolling gave what he presented as a quotation from the report:
 
 
 I need to point this out—I’m reading directly from this report: “The 
	Obama-allied Center for American Progress has released a report that blames 
	Islamophobia in America on a small group of Jews and Israel supporters in 
	America, whose views are being backed by millions of dollars.”
 
 
 As 
	should have been obvious, the quote was not from Fear, Inc., but rather from 
	an article smearing CAP, from the far-right American Thinker website 
	(8/27/11). That didn’t stop the rest of the segment—Bolling’s questions and 
	his guests’ answers—from focusing on CAP’s supposed anti-Semitic 
	conspiracy-theorizing. “For the Center of American Progress to say there is 
	a grand conspiracy undermines their credibility and is laughable,” said 
	lobbyist David Rehr, who likened CAP to a “left John Birch Society” (not to 
	be confused with the regular John Birch Society--the ultra-right, 
	conspiracy-mongering group prominently featured on Glenn Beck’s now defunct 
	Fox News show).
 
 Though Bolling later corrected his misattribution 
	(9/2/11), it was a good night for Muslim-bashing: There were no corrections 
	issued for the the oft-repeated charges that Muslim American institutions 
	are extremist or that Islamic law threatens the U.S.
 
 
 Islamophobia 
	is on the rise in the United States. Yearly polls taken by ABC News show a 
	10-point increase in unfavorable views of Muslims since 2001, and a doubling 
	of those who say Islam “encourages violence” since 2002. As the horrors of 
	the September 11 attacks recede into history, anti-Muslim sentiment 
	continues to increase.
 
 Meanwhile, American Muslims and their 
	institutions are under assault from many official quarters. The FBI has been 
	accused by the American Civil Liberties Union of “industrial scale” ethnic 
	and religious profiling (Christian Science Monitor,
	
	10/21/11). The New York City police department has reportedly partnered 
	with the CIA in a massive spying campaign, ethnically profiling mosques and 
	Muslims in cities far from New York (AP, 8/25/11), and Rep. Peter King 
	(R-N.Y.) has held three congressional hearings on terrorism focusing solely 
	on American Muslims, despite the fact that a tiny percent of “homegrown” 
	terrorist acts involve Muslim suspects—three of 83 between 9/11 and the end 
	of 2009, according to a recent RAND report (Extra!,
	5/11).
 
 Anti-Muslim bigotry has been around in the U.S. for decades, but why the 
	rise now? In addition to Fear, Inc., several recent reports suggest at least 
	part of the answer resides in the emergence of a more highly organized 
	national Islamophobic propaganda network (Southern Poverty Law Center 
	Intelligence Report,
	
	Summer/11; Political Research Associates, Manufacturing the Muslim 
	Menace,
	
	2011; People for the American Way, The Right-Wing Playbook on 
	Anti-Muslim Extremism,
	
	2011; UC Berkeley’s Center for Race & Gender/Council on American-Islamic 
	Relations, Same Hate, New Target,
	
	2011). FAIR’s 2008 report, Smearcasting: How Islamophobes Spread Fear, 
	Bigotry and Misinformation (10/8/08), 
	documented the prevalence of Islamophobia in right-wing and centrist U.S. 
	corporate media.
 
 “A small group of conservative foundations and 
	wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America,” 
	reports Fear, Inc., which identifies five key organizations and chief 
	spokespersons, or “misinformation experts”: Along with Emerson, they are 
	Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, David Yerushalmi of the 
	Society of Americans for National Existence, Daniel Pipes of Middle East 
	Forum and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.
 
 These groups and their 
	representatives are the “central nervous system” of the network, supported 
	and amplified by friendly media assets, grassroots and Web-based groups, as 
	well as political figures at local and national levels. Together they fuel 
	Islamophobia in the U.S. through campaigns that attempt to demonize 
	Islamic-American institutions as extremist and portray Muslims as secretly 
	plotting to impose Islamic law on the U.S.
 
 Popular expression of this 
	bigotry underpins campaigns against mosque construction (Extra!, 10/10) as 
	well as against the imagined threat of Islamic law, known as Shariah. Anti-Shariah 
	laws have passed in four states and are under consideration in more than 20 
	others (New York Times, 
	7/30/11; Forward, 7/22/11). 
	The main force behind these campaigns is Yerushalmi, an attorney who has 
	said Muslims “are our enemies” Anchorage class="media_outlet">Daily News4/1/11), 
	calls for “war against Islam and all Muslim faithful” (American Muslim,
	
	10/28/09) and, according to Mother Jones
	
	(3/1/11), has “tried to criminalize adherence to the Muslim faith.” (Not 
	limiting his bigotry to Islamophobia, Yerushalmi has referred to blacks as 
	“the most murderous of peoples,” called unauthorized immigrants “undeserving 
	of rights” and applauded the decision of America’s founders to deny women 
	and blacks the right to vote—McAdam Report,
	
	5/12/06.)
 
 According to a New York Times profile (7/30/11), 
	Yerushalmi writes reports, files lawsuits and drafts model legislation, “all 
	with the effect of casting Shariah as one of the greatest threats to 
	American freedom since the cold war.”
 
 While the First Amendment 
	prevents U.S. law from being based on any religious tradition, Shariah does 
	occasionally emerge in U.S. domestic law proceedings, typically when a will 
	specifies that an estate is to be divided in accordance with Muslim 
	tradition (just as a will may stipulate dispositions in accordance with 
	other religious traditions). Putting today’s anti-Shariah campaign in 
	historical context, Eliyahu Stern, a professor of religious studies and 
	history at Yale wrote in a New York Times op-ed (9/2/11), 
	“The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security is disturbingly 
	reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious 
	law was seditious.”
 
 
 The anti-Muslim network’s echo chamber was 
	demonstrated in June, by the publication of “Shariah and Violence in 
	American Mosques” in the Middle East Quarterly (Summer/11), the journal of 
	Islamophobe Daniel Pipes. The study, coauthored by Yerushalmi, portrayed 
	American mosques as teachers of violence and Islamic supremacy. As Spencer 
	reported on the study for his site Jihad Watch
	
	(6/7/11),
 
 51 percent of mosques had texts that either advocated 
	the use of violence in the pursuit of a Shariah-based political order or 
	advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to 
	a Muslim; 30 percent had only texts that were moderately supportive of 
	violence like the Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Fiqh as-Sunna; 19 percent had no 
	violent texts at all.
 
 The study also stated that in 85 percent of 
	American mosques, the imam recommended studying “violence-positive texts,” a 
	vague charge that prompted SPLC’s Robert Steinback to ask (Intelligence 
	Report, (6/13/11), 
	“If a priest or rabbi had a Bible on hand and ‘recommended’ the reading of 
	the Book of Leviticus, would that establish that he favors killing 
	adulterers, idolaters and incorrigible children?”
 
 Spencer’s piece 
	ran in Human Events
	(6/14/11), and 
	Jihad Watch’s sister publication FrontPageMag.com (6/10/11) ran an interview 
	with Yerushalmi on the study. Fox & Friends (6/13/11) hosted a discussion of 
	it with the Center for Security Policy’s Gaffney, who thanked the hosts for 
	taking on this “mortal threat.” In a Washington Times column (6/7/11), 
	Gaffney said the study “describes an ominous jihadist footprint being put 
	into place across the nation,” adding, “most mosques in the United States 
	are actually engaged in—or at least supportive of—a totalitarian, seditious 
	agenda they call Shariah.”
 
 The study was reported in many other 
	Islamophobic outlets, including National Review Online ( 
	6/7/11), Atlas Shrugs (6/7/11) 
	and Gates of Vienna (6/3/11).
 
 The claim that more than 80 percent of mosques teach violence and 
	Islamic supremacy, and another dramatic but unsupported figure from years 
	earlier alleging that 80 percent of American mosques are run by radical 
	imams, are regularly parroted by national media figures and politicians.
 
 Appearing on Laura Ingraham’s nationally syndicated radio show (1/13/11) 
	in advance of his hearings on domestic terrorism, Rep. King repeated a 
	number of Islamophobic smears, calling Muslims “an enemy living among us.” 
	According to the Center for American Progress blog Think Progress (1/25/11), 
	when King was asked by substitute host Raymond Arroyo how many mosques he 
	thought were “infected” by “radical jihad sentiment,” King said that “over 
	80 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by radical Imams.”
 
 Actually, a 2004 study of Detroit-area mosques by the Institute for 
	Social Policy and Understanding found that “the vast majority of 
	American-Muslims eschew extremist views.” A joint study of Muslims and 
	mosques carried out by scholars at the University of North Carolina and 
	Duke, Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans (1/6/10), 
	found that American mosques encourage political participation and reduce 
	social alienation and thus “contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to 
	the spread of militant Islam and terrorism,” as a New York Times (8/7/10) 
	summary of the study put it.
 
 “Rarely has the United States seen a 
	more reckless and bare-knuckled campaign,” wrote the SPLC’s Steinback wrote 
	(Intelligence Report,
	
	Summer/11), “to vilify a distinct class of people and compromise their 
	fundamental civil and human rights than the recent rhetoric against 
	Muslims.” As noted, the New York Times, among other outlets, has done 
	occasional reports debunking anti-Muslim smears. But such a large-scale 
	campaign of hatred and scapegoating requires a forceful and sustained effort 
	by journalists to challenge and refute the bigotry.
 
 
 
 
 |  |  |