If you read the Washington Post yesterday, you may have noticed the story headlined, “Anti-Muslim Harrassment Complaints Jump 30 Percent” in which Michelle Boorstein “reports”:
A national Muslim advocacy organization yesterday blamed a “negative and politically charged” environment on the Internet and talk radio for the 30 percent jump in anti-Muslim incidents reported to the group last year.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations received 1,972 complaints of harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment in 2005, up from 1,522 in 2004, according to an annual report released yesterday.
[...]
“We’re seeing a rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric fed by the Internet and also on talk radio,” CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said at a news conference. “You can’t turn on the radio without hearing negative, bigoted comments about Islam.”
Seventy-nine percent of the complaints came from nine states — including Virginia and Maryland — and Washington. Those are also the places with the largest Muslim populations, CAIR said. The organization registered 144 complaints last year in Virginia, a 32 percent jump from the previous year. Maryland’s total was 85 in 2005, five more than in 2004. There were 93 complaints in the District last year. The group didn’t report the 2004 D.C. number, because the city did not make the top 10 that year.
Those are some pretty damning numbers! Except for the fact that out of a population of between 1.5 and 2.0 million, only about 2,000 made any complaint (CAIR claims that 2,300 complaints were received, of which only 1,972 were deemed legitimate). And its all because of that bigoted internet and talk radio contingent, apparently egging on these attacks (where have I heard that before?). Nevertheless, the CAIR report does suggest that anti-muslim attacks are significantly rising. So I decided to go ahead and read the report.
CAIR claims that:
In 2005, CAIR processed a total of 1,972 civil rights complaints, compared to 1,522 cases
reported to CAIR in 2004. This constitutes a 29.6 percent increase in the total number of
complaints of anti-Muslim harassment, violence and discriminatory treatment from 2004. For the
second straight year, the 1,972 reports also marks the highest number of Muslim civil rights
complaints ever reported to CAIR in its twelve-year history.In addition, CAIR received 153 reports of anti-Muslim hate crime complaints, an 8.6
percent increase from the 141 complaints received in 2004.
Right off the bat, “civil rights complaints” certainly seems different than “harrassment” as screamed in the Washington Post headline, although, to be fair, later on in the report CAIR characterizes the complaints as “harrassment, violence and discriminatory treatment.” Yet the most abundant claims were of the “due process” variety:
The largest portion of complaints, more than 17 percent, fall into the “due process” category, said CAIR Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar. Those include complaints such as racial profiling and overzealous arrest or interrogation practices. Second, at 15 percent, are denial of religious accommodation accusations, and 14 percent concerned employment discrimination, according to the report.
For some reason, however, despite the numerous pretty graphs showing how the numbers have increased over the past five years, there are very few examples of the harrassment claimed in the report. Of those examples included, some are clearly erroneous, such as this claim on page 8 of the CAIR report:
On October 5, 2005, an Iowa man shouted a racial slur at a woman of Middle Eastern descent
before punching her in the face at an Iowa City tavern restaurant. Authorities say that the man
allegedly called the woman a ‘sand nigger’ and punched her in her left eye, knocking her to the
ground. The woman sustained a variety of injuries, including a chipped tooth, black eye, and a
cut nose, police officials said.
On a hunch, I followed the cited news article to see what the details were. It just seemed like such a random act, I was curious as to why some man would just haul off on a woman because she was muslim:
Authorities say a Coralville man spewed an ethnic epithet at a woman of Middle Eastern descent before punching her in the face at an Iowa City bar over the weekend.
Troy Anderson, 24, faces the charge of assault causing bodily injury in violation of civil rights – more commonly known as a hate crime – as a result of the alleged Oct. 1 attack.
The unidentified female complainant was leaving the patio area of the Deadwood Tavern, 6 S. Dubuque St., around 9:30 p.m. when Anderson, 2310 12th St., allegedly started to address her with slurs, said Iowa City police Lt. Jim Steffen.
Then, authorities say, Anderson allegedly called the woman a “sand nigger” and punched her in her left eye, knocking her to the ground. The woman sustained a variety of injuries, including a chipped tooth, red eye, and a cut nose, police said.
Police officials on Tuesday did not have additional information regarding the incident.
This would absolutely qualify as anti-muslim harrassment and violence, but riddle me this — what was a muslim, one who was apparently immediately recognizable as such, doing in a bar? Maybe she was just there to eat and got picked out of the crowd by some drunk racist prick, or maybe there’s more to the story.
Man not guilty of ‘hate crime’
Bryce Bauer – The Daily Iowan
Issue date: 7/19/06 Section: MetroIt was the classic case of “he said, she said.”And the jury believed him.The two-day long trial of Troy Carter Anderson, 25, ended Tuesday after a jury found him not guilty of assault causing injury and violation of individual rights – commonly known as a “hate crime.”[...]Mathes – who was born in New Delhi, India – testified Monday the altercations began after she sat down with a friend and some others on the Deadwood patio. She asserted that Anderson originally took issue with a jersey she was wearing that read: “Arabian Gangsters.”"He didn’t like the T-shirt I was wearing – he said it was stupid,” Mathes said during her testimony Monday. “I told him if he didn’t like it, he didn’t have to look at it.”However, in his testimony Tuesday, Anderson alleged Mathes originally insulted a female friend accompanying him, calling her a “fake bake bitch.”“She wanted to hurt someone’s feelings, obviously,” he said.
Regardless of who initiated the confrontation, both individuals agreed it escalated to the point of Anderson telling Mathes to “fuck off” and Mathes calling Anderson a “cracker.”
Now none of this lets Anderson off the hook as a loser who picked a bar fight with a girl (seriously, that’s about as lame as you can get), but clearly this was not a “hate crime” and it most definitely was not the random incident it was portrayed as by CAIR. But it gets worse. Mathes seems to have had some other problems with the law:
At the time of the incident, Mathes was on probation for a third-offense OWI – stipulations of which include alcohol abstinence and staying out of legal trouble. She admitted to drinking numerous beers – the exact number, which may have ranged from two to 10, was disputed – throughout the day. The defense went on to say one of Mathes’ motivations for pressing charges was to evoke sympathy and avoid being reprimanded for violating her probation – action that could have resulted in her losing custody of her child.
Again, that does not mean that Anderson gets a free swing at her. But it does suggest that Mathes was not the innocent victim she’s made out to be by CAIR (and it should be noted that there is nothing in the story that says she’s a muslim). In fact, of the three examples I checked from the CAIR report, only one seemed fairly plausible. In a bid to be even more lame than Anderson, three men are allegedl to have verbally harrassed a pregnant muslim woman who was walking down the streets of Arlington, VA:
On August 10, 2005, a 23-year old pregnant Virginia woman “was attacked by three men who
shouted anti-Muslim slurs and called her a terrorist.â€6 According to news outlets, when the
woman was being assaulted by one of the men, “The other two guys were just laughing and
screaming at the top of their lungs like it was a joke.â€
Again, its not acceptable behavior to act this way, but is calling someone a terrorist in order to get their goat a “hate crime” or a “civil rights violation”? I couldn’t find anything else about the incident, and the only other example I followed could not be found in the Washington Post‘s archives:
On September 22, 2005, Montgomery County (MD) police said that “…a Star of David was
painted…next to the sign of the Muslim Community Center†in suburban Washington,
DC. A line was also spray-painted across the word ‘Muslim’.
The elipsis just makes me wonder what came between “painted” and “next to.” In any case, if it happened as alleged by CAIR, vandalism is unacceptable behavior, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted. The real issue here is, why didn’t the Washington Post do any of this homework?
As far as I’m concerned, CAIR is a completely unreliable source for any newstory, especially one that quotes a “report” that is little more than pretty pictures and unconfirmed numbers. Surely there were attacks on muslims across the country, some of which were based on bigotry and hatred. But the fact that a reputable newspaper (and the Washington Post is the best of the Big 3 general newspapers as far as I’m concerned) would “report” what is essentially a propganda piece as straight news is reprehensible. How does this “report” receive absolutely zero scrutiny? I’m willing to believe sheer laziness plays a big part, but after you read this post, go ahead and google up the number of articles citing the CAIR propaganda as a factual document. Are all of those reporters lazy? Every single news organization? I truly doubt it, and so should you.
Really? Gee, seems to me that their opinions were founded in prejudice, half-truths, and outright distortions.
No objection from me there. Where exactly did I argue against that idea?
Hmmm… seems like you have fallen into the same trap of prejudice and smear tactics that Doc and Darren have.
How magnanimous of you.
Atheists and agnostics would say the same thing of every religion. Pray tell, once I am released of my shackles, to what religion do you feel I should turn?
Ah yes, the blanket term Islamofascists. How we love to neatly categorize everything into a nice little file system. Firstly, there are numerous Islamist groups out there with vastly different beliefs and methodologies. Secondly, not all terrorist groups claiming to be Muslims are Islamists (or Islamofascists if you prefer). Thirdly, many of the groups that we refer to as Islamofascists are actually nothing more than pan-Arab nationalists (Al Qaeda is one such group). Read OBL’s speeches and any of the other Al Qaeda leaders’ declarations. Religiously, they are a sham. They only use the cover of oppressed religious minority to mask their real goals and actions. OBL is a pan-Arab nationalist terrorist. Plain and simple. Which isn’t to say that all “Muslim” terrorists are identical to Al Qaeda. They aren’t, but let’s at least try to understand that the catchall Islamofascist is only applicable to some groups.
Omar, who decides who is a true Muslim and who’s perverting the religion? The Islamofascists probably consider you a heretic who deserves death with the rest of us. Why should your interpretation by any more valid than theirs? They may be maniacs and degenerates but that doesn’t make them wrong. Their acts are entirely consistent with the life of Muhammad. In fact, they emulate the prophet almost perfectly. He was a violent bandit, a petty, a vindictive megalomaniac and a mass murderor.
I would ask you the same question. You have apparently decided that the interpretation of terrorists who shun the established doctrines of Islam are the actual “true” Muslims who are emulating the life of Muhammed (SAW). You have bought into the rhetoric of Salafists and political hacks calling themselves religious leaders (OBL) and now judge the other 1.2 billion Muslims by the actions of a few crackpots.
Do you also judge all Jews by the actions of the Kahanists or the Neteuri Karta? Or all Catholics by the actions of abortion clinic bombers or Mel Gibson?
It seems like you have answered your own question. YOU decide whose interpretation is valid and, in this case, you believe that OBL and Al Qaeda have the right take on things.
In my opinion, there can be no “correct” interpretation of religious faith, be it Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or Christianity. They’re all fairy tales and superticious legends anyway so we might as well be arguing about whether Thor or Baal causes thunder. There can be no “true” Muslim since Islam is just a product of someone’s imagination.
What troubles me is that Islam, at its source, originated from one of history’s most despicable characters. If Muhammad is the standard of perfection to ALL Muslims, be they Salafists or not, we have a major problem. No amount of interpretation will change that. I wouldn’t want to base a religion on Hitler or Stalin regardless of how the faithful “interpret” their teachings. You can only squeeze so much good out of essentially evil personalities.
Say what you will about organized Christianity or Budhism, at least their prophets (imagined or not) conformed to the utmost standard of human decency. Muhammad, on the other hand, would be considered a psychopathic murderous maniac by all rational standards. Following his example may have worked in the dark ages (when rape, murder and pillage were respectable means of getting ahead) but it’s incompatible with modern civilized society.
That said, I think that most people are, by default, inherently good and “Muslims” are no different than anybody else in that respect. I also think that the teachings of Islam allow the few maniacs and psychopaths to justify their actions as fully compatible with religious doctrine. Instead of becoming pariahs of society, they are lionized as great heros and defenders of the faith. And yes, Osama bin Laden IS a hero to many Muslims. I’ve yet to see images of Christians dancing in the streets hugging pictures of abortion clinic bombers.