By Edgar Hopida
[This short letter to the editor was published in San Diego Daily Transcript's February 13, 2009 print edition (appeared online on Feb 12th http://www.sddt.com/Search/article.cfm?SourceCode=20090212tzb). For background to the response, I recommend all of you to read my previous post, then read Larry Stirling's response http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?Commentary_ID=141&SourceCode=20090204tzc ]
With an impressive resume combination of military, politics, and law, we would think that Mr. Stirling would issue out a more notable response to the issues I raised in my letter to the editor. Unfortunately, he has resorted to ad hominem attacks out of desperation and frustration, refusing to acknowledge that his understanding of Islam and issues relating to it lack real credibility when compared to the factual record.
What is supposed to be a discussion on Gaza and the Israel/Palestine conflict, Stirling has turned it into a personal vendetta against CAIR. Notice that he did not once refute any of the points I brought out in my letter to the editor. If one thinks about it, he couldn’t anyway. Trying to refute the reports put out by mainstream human rights organizations, the United Nations, and specialists on the Israel/Palestine conflict is a truly daunting if not impossible task to achieve.
Larry Stirling has gone deep into the gutter to recycle already refuted allegations made about the Council on American-Islamic Relations in a pitiful attempt to discredit the largest mainstream American Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization in North America. The claims made by Stirling in his newest opinion editorial were penned by political pundits, Islamophobic investigative reporters, and others who have milked the 9/11 tragedy to enrich themselves and to become self-proclaimed “experts” on Islam and the Muslim world. In the mainstream, these “experts” are taken seriously as one would take the celebrity tabloids at the local supermarket.
Mr. Stirling likes to portray himself as the victim, “that dare to tell the truth about Islamist conduct or comment on CAIR and its methods and objectives.” The problem is none of what he says in his opinion editorials represents the truth when it comes to Islam and CAIR. Since the summer of 2005, he has repeatedly made factual errors on Islam. These errors were so numerous and disturbing that we have an over 27 page document listing all his factual errors along with refutations that can easily be found and supported in the scholarly literature.
As a person who works closely with many interfaith, ethnic, and civil rights organizations, I am glad that Mr. Stirling’s warped view of the world is not the mainstream. People like Larry Stirling are relegated to the extreme fringe, where myths become facts, and facts become myths. Fortunately for most people in San Diego, we haven’t gone down that road of obsessive paranoia.
Edgar Hopida is the Public Relations Director of the San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-San Diego).
Showing posts with label Islamophobia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamophobia. Show all posts
Friday, February 13, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Gaza was not a cosmic battle between Islam and the West
By Edgar Hopida
[This letter to the editor was published in the January 27, 2009 issue of San Diego Daily Transcript. For background on Larry Stirling's opinion editorial,go to http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?Commentary_ID=141&SourceCode=20090107tza]
*NOTE: My response is also found on the official San Diego Daily Transcript website http://www.sddt.com/Search/article.cfm?SourceCode=20090126tza
Larry Stirling seems to have an obsession with the whole thesis of perpetual war between Islam and the “West.” He continues his repeated factual errors on Islam by stating, “They have been conquering nations for Islam for the last 1,600 years.” Muslims around the world last month celebrated the Islamic new year of 1430.
In his January 7th editorial, he mistakenly placed the recent crisis in Gaza as some sort of cosmic religious war between Islam and the rest of the world with Israel being its current target. While it sounds good for the next summer block buster movie, his analysis is way off the mark.
It has been proven in the documentary record that the whole issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict has always been that of occupation and injustice. It had never to do with anti-Semitism or tensions between the religious traditions. Moreover, while Stirling has absolved Israel of its actions in the recent conflict, the rest of the international community is calling upon charges of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law.
Mainstream human rights organizations like B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, have accused Israel of its unlawful use of white phosphorous and depleted uranium on the civilian population of Gaza in addition to UN buildings. Nine Israeli human rights organizations are calling for the investigation of possible war crimes against Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The UN Human Rights Council also passed a motion condemning Israel of “grave violations of human rights.”
Muslims around the world including locally contrary to Stirling’s assertions, were speaking out against the violence in Gaza and were calling for a ceasefire between both parties. This was echoed by the UN Security Council that passed Resolution 1860 with a vote of 14-0 with our government abstaining. Out of defiance and contempt for international law and its institutions, Israel ignored the resolution opting to make its own unilateral ceasefire over a week later. Meanwhile according to B’Tselem more innocent Palestinians in Gaza were killed and injured with the total count being over 1300 killed, almost half of them women and children, and over 5,000 thousand injured. On the Israeli side there were a total of 13 killed, 3 of them were civilian and over 84 civilians injured.
Stirling focused his opinion editorial on the Israeli town of Sderot which had been plagued by rockets fired by militants in Gaza. This action is equally condemnable according to international law and has been documented by mainstream human rights organizations. He recounts his visit to Sderot a year ago seeing “first-hand” what the “locals were enduring.” Larry Stirling however, seems oblivious to the situation in Gaza.
Dr. Sara Roy a Harvard Senior Research Scholar and expert on Gaza, studied the socio-economic and political decline of the Palestinians in Gaza for over three decades. Roy concluded that the Israeli occupation of Gaza had caused a “de-development” of Gaza’s economy. “De-development” as coined by Roy, “precludes, over a long term, the possibility of any kind of development process, even a disarticulated one, by destroying the economy’s capacity to produce.” The so-called Israeli “disengagement” of Gaza in 2005 according to Roy, made the situation even worse by its continuance of control over the airspace, borders, and sea surrounding Gaza. The late prominent Hebrew University sociologist Baruch Kimmerling had described Gaza as "the largest concentration camp ever to exist."
This analysis is further corroborated by B’Tselem’s over 80 page report on Gaza called, “One Big Prison,” which concluded, “Israel has severely restricted freedom of movement to and from the Gaza Strip. These restrictions strangled Gaza, essentially turning the area into one big prison.” B’Tselem’s report also stated, “The restrictions on the movement of goods and laborers has created a deep recession, the loss of work, and a dramatic deterioration in living conditions.”
While Larry Stirling has dismissed CAIR San Diego who has been advocating on behalf of the people of Gaza as a “propaganda arm,” our conclusions are based on what mainstream human rights organizations, Dr Sara Roy’s research on Gaza, the United Nations, as well as what Israeli media have reported on the crisis. When the factual record goes against his view, the only thing he can resort to is call it propaganda.
Edgar D. Hopida is the Director of Public Relations for the San Diego Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-San Diego).
[This letter to the editor was published in the January 27, 2009 issue of San Diego Daily Transcript. For background on Larry Stirling's opinion editorial,go to http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?Commentary_ID=141&SourceCode=20090107tza]
*NOTE: My response is also found on the official San Diego Daily Transcript website http://www.sddt.com/Search/article.cfm?SourceCode=20090126tza
Larry Stirling seems to have an obsession with the whole thesis of perpetual war between Islam and the “West.” He continues his repeated factual errors on Islam by stating, “They have been conquering nations for Islam for the last 1,600 years.” Muslims around the world last month celebrated the Islamic new year of 1430.
In his January 7th editorial, he mistakenly placed the recent crisis in Gaza as some sort of cosmic religious war between Islam and the rest of the world with Israel being its current target. While it sounds good for the next summer block buster movie, his analysis is way off the mark.
It has been proven in the documentary record that the whole issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict has always been that of occupation and injustice. It had never to do with anti-Semitism or tensions between the religious traditions. Moreover, while Stirling has absolved Israel of its actions in the recent conflict, the rest of the international community is calling upon charges of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law.
Mainstream human rights organizations like B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, have accused Israel of its unlawful use of white phosphorous and depleted uranium on the civilian population of Gaza in addition to UN buildings. Nine Israeli human rights organizations are calling for the investigation of possible war crimes against Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The UN Human Rights Council also passed a motion condemning Israel of “grave violations of human rights.”
Muslims around the world including locally contrary to Stirling’s assertions, were speaking out against the violence in Gaza and were calling for a ceasefire between both parties. This was echoed by the UN Security Council that passed Resolution 1860 with a vote of 14-0 with our government abstaining. Out of defiance and contempt for international law and its institutions, Israel ignored the resolution opting to make its own unilateral ceasefire over a week later. Meanwhile according to B’Tselem more innocent Palestinians in Gaza were killed and injured with the total count being over 1300 killed, almost half of them women and children, and over 5,000 thousand injured. On the Israeli side there were a total of 13 killed, 3 of them were civilian and over 84 civilians injured.
Stirling focused his opinion editorial on the Israeli town of Sderot which had been plagued by rockets fired by militants in Gaza. This action is equally condemnable according to international law and has been documented by mainstream human rights organizations. He recounts his visit to Sderot a year ago seeing “first-hand” what the “locals were enduring.” Larry Stirling however, seems oblivious to the situation in Gaza.
Dr. Sara Roy a Harvard Senior Research Scholar and expert on Gaza, studied the socio-economic and political decline of the Palestinians in Gaza for over three decades. Roy concluded that the Israeli occupation of Gaza had caused a “de-development” of Gaza’s economy. “De-development” as coined by Roy, “precludes, over a long term, the possibility of any kind of development process, even a disarticulated one, by destroying the economy’s capacity to produce.” The so-called Israeli “disengagement” of Gaza in 2005 according to Roy, made the situation even worse by its continuance of control over the airspace, borders, and sea surrounding Gaza. The late prominent Hebrew University sociologist Baruch Kimmerling had described Gaza as "the largest concentration camp ever to exist."
This analysis is further corroborated by B’Tselem’s over 80 page report on Gaza called, “One Big Prison,” which concluded, “Israel has severely restricted freedom of movement to and from the Gaza Strip. These restrictions strangled Gaza, essentially turning the area into one big prison.” B’Tselem’s report also stated, “The restrictions on the movement of goods and laborers has created a deep recession, the loss of work, and a dramatic deterioration in living conditions.”
While Larry Stirling has dismissed CAIR San Diego who has been advocating on behalf of the people of Gaza as a “propaganda arm,” our conclusions are based on what mainstream human rights organizations, Dr Sara Roy’s research on Gaza, the United Nations, as well as what Israeli media have reported on the crisis. When the factual record goes against his view, the only thing he can resort to is call it propaganda.
Edgar D. Hopida is the Director of Public Relations for the San Diego Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-San Diego).
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Obsession with Hate - A Decisive Response to the Anti-Muslim Documentary "Obsession"
Propagandists of Islamophobia amaze me sometimes. Since 9/11 all these "former" Muslims, "former" terrorists, and what not have come out of the woodwork to publish a vast array of books and publications with the intent of educating the American public about the "Muslim threat." While few will deny that (like in any other religion or ideology for that matter) within the Muslim community there are people who are at the fringe, some even to the point that they are willing to inflict physical harm and death on innocent people, the propagandists fail to distinguish the mainstream from the fringe.
Many of these propagandists have an agenda usually tied to some political ideology (in this case the far right wing of the political spectrum. Some of them are also motivated by the dollar sign. One of my teachers in Islam once told us that " If you want a New York Times Bestseller and be invited to the media shows and be regarded as an expert, leave Islam, or better yet if your a woman, make an outrageous claim that you have been oppressed."
Recently, a shadowy group called the Clarion Fund (which after research originates from a fringe group located in Israel) sent several million copies of the Anti-Muslim propaganda documentary "Obsession" to local media newspapers in election swing states.
One can draw many conclusions from this action. Nonetheless, as a response from the mainstream American interfaith community along with ironically a local college professor who was dupped into being interviewed in the documentary, issued a definitive response and rebuttal to this documentary.
The website that Hate Hurts America created is called www.obsessionwithhate.com
Not only does this website go after the factual errors in the film but also exposes the propagandists that are featured in this film. Each propaganist has a track record of dirt and shady connections that cannot be ignored.
The following is the introduction page to this website which I recommend all of you to visit and read:
What is 'Obsession'?
Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West is a 2005 anti-Muslim propaganda film put together by controversial anti-Muslim figures to further the perceived divide between Western and Muslim audiences. 28 million copies of the DVD were recently distributed by a mysteriously-funded entity by the name of the Clarion Fund with the help of 70 US newspapers in a curious and unprecedented campaign. This large distribution, particularly given it was targeted to swing states in the current elections cycle, piqued the interest of many, especially civil rights watchdogs.
Why is 'Obsession' a hate film, can we deny that radical violent Muslims exist?
Of course, there is no denying that there are those who have misused Islam to promote an anti-Western militant ideology that is responsible for the tragic 9/11 attacks and other deplorable terrorist acts around the globe. Few would disagree that Al Qaeda and its imitators are ruthless enemies that the United States must deal with forcefully.
But “Obsession” is not an honest critique of violent radicalism. Instead, it is a propaganda piece that seeks to cast a wide net of suspicion against Muslims by blurring the line between violent radicalism and mainstream Islam. As such, it does not call on credible experts and reputable scholars but resorts to shady characters like “former-terrorist” Walid Shoebat, who has made such outlandish statements as: “Islam is not the religion of God Islam is the devil.”
In a recent commentary responding to the distribution of “Obsession,” Jeff VanDenBerg, director of Middle East Studies at Drury University, called the film “a blatant piece of anti-Muslim propaganda.” He also wrote: “The film ‘Obsession’ plays to the crudest stereotypes and promotes the simplest solutions. In the end, this kind of thinking will do far more to harm American security than it will to help it.” (News-Leader, 9/17/08)
What about the film's declaration that it is not about moderate Muslims, just radical ones?
“Obsession” begins with a brief disclaimer that states: “It is important to remember that most Muslims are peaceful and do not support terror.” However, the remainder of the film distorts facts and events in an attempt to convince its audience of the exact opposite.
What is the film's main goal?
The film’s ultimate goal is to lay the grounds for a larger religious war that goes beyond our national security interests and has only two beneficiaries: radical evangelicals who hold an apocalyptic worldview, and war profiteers who gamble at the expense of thousands of American lives and trillions of tax-payer dollars.
What are the film's main tactics?
“Obsession” employs two main tactics.
First, it exploits Americans’ unfamiliarity with Islam and Muslims to suggest that deviant groups are somehow representative of most, if not all, Muslims. It scours the Muslim world for bizarre incidents and falsely projects them as the accepted norm. It then concludes that the Muslim world is an overall radical hotbed that wishes death and destruction upon the West.
In fact, while the Muslim world has its share of fanatics, they comprise a tiny fraction of the population and are highly at odds with a mainstream society that aspires to peace and prosperity.
Second, “Obsession” exploits the legitimate apprehension that many feel in this country as a result of 9/11 and attempts to instigate a state of full-blown hysteria. Only widespread hysteria could make questionable military excursions such as the Iraq occupation a possible sell yet again.
In fact, America faces no imminent threat from Muslim nations, who are themselves wary of the minority radicals in their midst. No Muslim nation has ever attacked our homeland, and none is likely to ever initiate such an attack.
If 'Obsession' is a sub-par work of propaganda, why should we waste our time talking about it?
Sensational content aside, “Obsession” ought to peak our interest for two reasons:
The first is the gargantuan size of the operation: 28 million free copies distributed via 70 major daily newspapers. That could cost tens of millions of dollars if we assume even conservative advertising rates.
The second reason is how surprisingly little we know about the operation itself.
All we know is that the film’s distribution is paid for by a shadowy organization called the Clarion Fund. For an entity so well-endowed, the Clarion Fund’s website offers no relevant information about its identity or its source of funding. Its 990 forms are not yet public.
What needs to be done moving forward?
Three important questions have to be answered:
First, who exactly is this Clarion Fund and what is its source of funding? The public has a right to know and reporters have a responsibility to investigate.
Second, the film is being distributed only in swing states with the obvious strategic goal of swaying the elections. That should automatically put the burden on both candidates to speak out and clearly communicate their positions on this film and its distribution tactics. Voters have a right to know where the candidates stand and journalists have a responsibility to ask.
Third, given the sheer size of this operation and its self-described political nature, it is baffling to note the apathy with which it has been met on our primetime network election coverage. It does not just affect Muslims, but all Americans, when sensationalism threatens to hijack honest and informed debate on the key issues in the biggest decision of our generation.
Be sure to read the full rebuttal to the false arguments made by Obsession.
After reading through the point by point rebuttal, it just shows how these people who are behind this Anti-Muslim hysteria lack a moral compass.
To my surprise however, (as mentioned earlier) one of the interviewees in that documentary came out and condemned the film for what it is. For me to sumarize his comments won't do it justice. Despite the face that I sharply disagree with his views on Israel and his views on the mainstream Islamic Tradition, I do respect him for his integrity in this whole matter.
Below is his statement taken from the www.obsessionwithhate.com website:
In an exclusive statement for obsessionwithhate.com, Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, the only Obsession interviewee who is an Islamic Studies Professor, delivers a new lethal blow to the film's credibility, exposing what many already knew:
“Sadly, it would seem that I have allowed myself to be used. I gave an interview to the makers of “obsession” wherein I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists. I understood that the film would be used objectively, focusing on fanatics who seek to spread violence. I am aware that there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the film that says it is not about Islam in general, but only about extremist interpretations.
"But the material from some of the speakers gives the lie to the disclaimer: many of them are not experts, or have used the mantle of academic qualifications to purvey hate. That their alarmist drivel should be mixed with my whittled down interview proves that the intent of the film is not to educate, but to mislead. The free distribution of the film to voters in particular districts shows the political chicanery that is the motive, and the secrecy about the financing of the distribution only underlines the evil intent in circulating this vile piece of propaganda.
"Evidence seems to indicate the involvement of Aish ha-Torah in this dishonest enterprise. I find that particularly distressing, because any Jewish organization ought to realize what the film seeks to do: they demonize an entire community to the point where a government takes action to further beleaguer its citizens and resident aliens simply because of their religious identity. This bigotry over religion and identity is precisely what caused the Shoah — and it is sad that those who ought to have learned what hate can engender should seek to imitate Nazi propagandism.
"Yet — for all the nefarious intent of the distributors of the film — I must also accept culpability for allowing myself to be so used. I still oppose many of the traditional interpretations of Islam—but that has nothing to do with the film Obsession. I cannot stand by silently and allow my participation in such satanic demonization of innocents. I apologize to my fellow Muslims for appearing in such a film. I apologize to my Jewish teachers and friends-- who have warned me time and again about falling into such a situation—for not heeding their counsel. And I expect now that those who support the film will make me their target. But again: I am no diplomat, and I love a good fight. I am obsessed with the truth. Let’s get it on. “
Go to WWW.OBSESSIONWITHHATE.COM
Much props to the Hate Hurts America Coalition for challenging hate and bigotry
Many of these propagandists have an agenda usually tied to some political ideology (in this case the far right wing of the political spectrum. Some of them are also motivated by the dollar sign. One of my teachers in Islam once told us that " If you want a New York Times Bestseller and be invited to the media shows and be regarded as an expert, leave Islam, or better yet if your a woman, make an outrageous claim that you have been oppressed."
Recently, a shadowy group called the Clarion Fund (which after research originates from a fringe group located in Israel) sent several million copies of the Anti-Muslim propaganda documentary "Obsession" to local media newspapers in election swing states.
One can draw many conclusions from this action. Nonetheless, as a response from the mainstream American interfaith community along with ironically a local college professor who was dupped into being interviewed in the documentary, issued a definitive response and rebuttal to this documentary.
The website that Hate Hurts America created is called www.obsessionwithhate.com
Not only does this website go after the factual errors in the film but also exposes the propagandists that are featured in this film. Each propaganist has a track record of dirt and shady connections that cannot be ignored.
The following is the introduction page to this website which I recommend all of you to visit and read:
What is 'Obsession'?
Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West is a 2005 anti-Muslim propaganda film put together by controversial anti-Muslim figures to further the perceived divide between Western and Muslim audiences. 28 million copies of the DVD were recently distributed by a mysteriously-funded entity by the name of the Clarion Fund with the help of 70 US newspapers in a curious and unprecedented campaign. This large distribution, particularly given it was targeted to swing states in the current elections cycle, piqued the interest of many, especially civil rights watchdogs.
Why is 'Obsession' a hate film, can we deny that radical violent Muslims exist?
Of course, there is no denying that there are those who have misused Islam to promote an anti-Western militant ideology that is responsible for the tragic 9/11 attacks and other deplorable terrorist acts around the globe. Few would disagree that Al Qaeda and its imitators are ruthless enemies that the United States must deal with forcefully.
But “Obsession” is not an honest critique of violent radicalism. Instead, it is a propaganda piece that seeks to cast a wide net of suspicion against Muslims by blurring the line between violent radicalism and mainstream Islam. As such, it does not call on credible experts and reputable scholars but resorts to shady characters like “former-terrorist” Walid Shoebat, who has made such outlandish statements as: “Islam is not the religion of God Islam is the devil.”
In a recent commentary responding to the distribution of “Obsession,” Jeff VanDenBerg, director of Middle East Studies at Drury University, called the film “a blatant piece of anti-Muslim propaganda.” He also wrote: “The film ‘Obsession’ plays to the crudest stereotypes and promotes the simplest solutions. In the end, this kind of thinking will do far more to harm American security than it will to help it.” (News-Leader, 9/17/08)
What about the film's declaration that it is not about moderate Muslims, just radical ones?
“Obsession” begins with a brief disclaimer that states: “It is important to remember that most Muslims are peaceful and do not support terror.” However, the remainder of the film distorts facts and events in an attempt to convince its audience of the exact opposite.
What is the film's main goal?
The film’s ultimate goal is to lay the grounds for a larger religious war that goes beyond our national security interests and has only two beneficiaries: radical evangelicals who hold an apocalyptic worldview, and war profiteers who gamble at the expense of thousands of American lives and trillions of tax-payer dollars.
What are the film's main tactics?
“Obsession” employs two main tactics.
First, it exploits Americans’ unfamiliarity with Islam and Muslims to suggest that deviant groups are somehow representative of most, if not all, Muslims. It scours the Muslim world for bizarre incidents and falsely projects them as the accepted norm. It then concludes that the Muslim world is an overall radical hotbed that wishes death and destruction upon the West.
In fact, while the Muslim world has its share of fanatics, they comprise a tiny fraction of the population and are highly at odds with a mainstream society that aspires to peace and prosperity.
Second, “Obsession” exploits the legitimate apprehension that many feel in this country as a result of 9/11 and attempts to instigate a state of full-blown hysteria. Only widespread hysteria could make questionable military excursions such as the Iraq occupation a possible sell yet again.
In fact, America faces no imminent threat from Muslim nations, who are themselves wary of the minority radicals in their midst. No Muslim nation has ever attacked our homeland, and none is likely to ever initiate such an attack.
If 'Obsession' is a sub-par work of propaganda, why should we waste our time talking about it?
Sensational content aside, “Obsession” ought to peak our interest for two reasons:
The first is the gargantuan size of the operation: 28 million free copies distributed via 70 major daily newspapers. That could cost tens of millions of dollars if we assume even conservative advertising rates.
The second reason is how surprisingly little we know about the operation itself.
All we know is that the film’s distribution is paid for by a shadowy organization called the Clarion Fund. For an entity so well-endowed, the Clarion Fund’s website offers no relevant information about its identity or its source of funding. Its 990 forms are not yet public.
What needs to be done moving forward?
Three important questions have to be answered:
First, who exactly is this Clarion Fund and what is its source of funding? The public has a right to know and reporters have a responsibility to investigate.
Second, the film is being distributed only in swing states with the obvious strategic goal of swaying the elections. That should automatically put the burden on both candidates to speak out and clearly communicate their positions on this film and its distribution tactics. Voters have a right to know where the candidates stand and journalists have a responsibility to ask.
Third, given the sheer size of this operation and its self-described political nature, it is baffling to note the apathy with which it has been met on our primetime network election coverage. It does not just affect Muslims, but all Americans, when sensationalism threatens to hijack honest and informed debate on the key issues in the biggest decision of our generation.
Be sure to read the full rebuttal to the false arguments made by Obsession.
After reading through the point by point rebuttal, it just shows how these people who are behind this Anti-Muslim hysteria lack a moral compass.
To my surprise however, (as mentioned earlier) one of the interviewees in that documentary came out and condemned the film for what it is. For me to sumarize his comments won't do it justice. Despite the face that I sharply disagree with his views on Israel and his views on the mainstream Islamic Tradition, I do respect him for his integrity in this whole matter.
Below is his statement taken from the www.obsessionwithhate.com website:
In an exclusive statement for obsessionwithhate.com, Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, the only Obsession interviewee who is an Islamic Studies Professor, delivers a new lethal blow to the film's credibility, exposing what many already knew:
“Sadly, it would seem that I have allowed myself to be used. I gave an interview to the makers of “obsession” wherein I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists. I understood that the film would be used objectively, focusing on fanatics who seek to spread violence. I am aware that there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the film that says it is not about Islam in general, but only about extremist interpretations.
"But the material from some of the speakers gives the lie to the disclaimer: many of them are not experts, or have used the mantle of academic qualifications to purvey hate. That their alarmist drivel should be mixed with my whittled down interview proves that the intent of the film is not to educate, but to mislead. The free distribution of the film to voters in particular districts shows the political chicanery that is the motive, and the secrecy about the financing of the distribution only underlines the evil intent in circulating this vile piece of propaganda.
"Evidence seems to indicate the involvement of Aish ha-Torah in this dishonest enterprise. I find that particularly distressing, because any Jewish organization ought to realize what the film seeks to do: they demonize an entire community to the point where a government takes action to further beleaguer its citizens and resident aliens simply because of their religious identity. This bigotry over religion and identity is precisely what caused the Shoah — and it is sad that those who ought to have learned what hate can engender should seek to imitate Nazi propagandism.
"Yet — for all the nefarious intent of the distributors of the film — I must also accept culpability for allowing myself to be so used. I still oppose many of the traditional interpretations of Islam—but that has nothing to do with the film Obsession. I cannot stand by silently and allow my participation in such satanic demonization of innocents. I apologize to my fellow Muslims for appearing in such a film. I apologize to my Jewish teachers and friends-- who have warned me time and again about falling into such a situation—for not heeding their counsel. And I expect now that those who support the film will make me their target. But again: I am no diplomat, and I love a good fight. I am obsessed with the truth. Let’s get it on. “
Go to WWW.OBSESSIONWITHHATE.COM
Much props to the Hate Hurts America Coalition for challenging hate and bigotry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
