February 27, 2008, - 6:14 pm

ABC’s “Islamophobic” Americans

By Debbie Schlussel
**** UPDATE: Here’s a quick video summary of the whole thing (the whole thing is at the link below). The man who mentioned that Jews and Christians never blew anything up was NOT shown on ABC, last night. Gee, I wonder why. ****
I’ve written about CBS’ attempts to get Muslims to go to various places and show how “Islamophobic” Americans are. NBC and other networks–yes, including your precious FOX News–have tried the same. So it was with no surprise that, last night, I watched ABC News “reporter” John Quinones (who seems more interesting in manufacturing news than in reporting it) set up Southerners at a bakery, blaming them for “not intervening” while an actor posing as an employee refused service to an actress in a headscarf (hijab) posing as a Muslima (female Muslim). The report was called, “Primetime: What Would You Do?– Islamophobia.” The video is on the upper right-hand corner.
But, in fact, he got it wrong on all counts. While several of those at the bakery did stand up for the woman they believed was a persecuted Muslim, the ones who did not had far better reasons. The fact is that a phobia is an irrational fear or hatred. How unreasonable is it to hate or fear those who who’ve repeatedly fomented terrorist attacks on Americans and other innocent Westerners? How irrational is it to worry about this religion that is more cult than faith and which is imposing its intolerance all over America and the rest of the world?

hijabugly.jpg

I’ll tell you the ABC “Primetime” “What Would You Do?” report that I’ll never see, but would love to: A non-Muslim posing as a Muslim–as I regularly do–in a majority Muslim environment. I guarantee you won’t see any Muslims helping such a woman, only viciously attacking her. Or a secret camera showing what Muslims think of us when they don’t know we’re watching. That’s what all Americans need to see, especially the crybaby Americans who cried and bitched over the treatment of the hijab-encrusted woman. They will be the first ones slaughtered in an Islamic society.
And their statements were ignorant. One man shouted that a hijab is a “necessary religious item,” but it isn’t. The Koran says nothing about wearing a headscarf, nor does Islamic law. Many religious Muslim women do not wear one. It’s a sign of extremism and oppression, nothing more, in Islam. Oh, and “modesty” (a big joke for the many Islamic women who wear one and then cheat on their husbands or wear low-rise jeans–we have plenty of those here in Detroit).
I’ve posed in a hijab in many locations, on my way to going undercover at mosques or other Islamic events. And my experience is not the persecution that CAIR and John Quinones and ABC and “Primetime” claim that there is. On the contrary, I was treated far better in my hijab than I was as a normal person. People smiled at me and fell all over themselves to tell me the time and/or wait on me at stores and service-oriented businesses. “Look at me, I’m helping the Muslim girl. What a great American I am.” It was sickening.
If there’s any prejudice toward Muslims in America, it is mostly on the other side–that is, it’s about how Americans go overboard to bend over backward . . . and forward for these people, whose religion wants us dead.
And it’s not Islamophobia to take note of that.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

25 Responses

There are tons of Muslims in my area along with many Mosques. I see Muslims every day in the local stores. In fact they own many of stores. I have never seen I act of hostility directed towards Muslims. Not even in the days immediately following the 9/11 attacks. I live not far from where the WTC stood. Muslims in my neighborhood were not harrassed in any way.
I would suggest if, they that these lamestream media “journalists” want to document bigotry and prejudice, they dress some people up as Jews and bring them into a Mosque or into a predominately Muslim neighborhood.
By the way, do Hindus in India suffer from Islamophobia or do they suffer from Islamic aggresssion and oppression?

FreethinkerNY on February 27, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Myself, I look forward to the day when we are all Muslims. Not only will there be world peace since we will all be pulling in the same direction, but I will also be able to take 4 wives (what can I say other than I am a romantic guy with love enough for more than just one woman). Allah-luja!

canorth on February 27, 2008 at 8:11 pm

This is sickening. They can’t find the prejudice so they create it. I also live in a muslim neighborhood close to WTC. I never saw any bad blood toward them and still do not. I may get treated a little different by them in the summer if I am wearing a sundress. Usually they either leer or avoid looking at me. I also see hijabed women on the subway and nobody treats them any different. Nobody seems afraid to sit near them. Maybe a double look because it’s odd to see at first.

nyone on February 27, 2008 at 8:34 pm

How unreasonable is it to hate or fear those who who’ve repeatedly fomented terrorist attacks on Americans and other innocent Westerners?
It’s not unreasonable at all.
How irrational is it to worry about this religion that is more cult than faith and which is imposing its intolerance all over America and the rest of the world?
Extremely irrational. You want to hold an entire religion guilty of sin due to the actions of a minority. That’s simply un-American.
Just what is your goal here, Debbie? Eliminate all Muslims, is that it?

Audacious on February 27, 2008 at 9:02 pm

If the German-American Bund had come along 60 years later, all they’d have to do is call themselves a “religion” that proclaims, “There is no god but Odin and Shickelgruber is his prophet,” and ABC would be running lickspittle profiles of them. With the enthusiastic support of certain posters on this board, of course. And “blitzkrieg” would mean “peaceful struggle to master personal holiness,” too.

DocLiberty on February 27, 2008 at 9:44 pm

`Extremely irrational. You want to hold an entire religion guilty of sin due to the actions of a minority. That’s simply un-American.` – Audacious
Rest assured that Debbie did not found Islam (Religion Of War – ROW) that you love.
Btw the Turks are at doing something about all those false teachings in Islam (good luck to them for what it`s worth):
“But the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society it is in a hurry to modernise, and believes it responsible for obscuring the original values of Islam. It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.”
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009994.html

hutchrun on February 27, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Just what is your goal here, Debbie? Eliminate all Muslims, is that it? – Audacious
Yes you are truly audacious, after all it is Darul Islam`s desire to eliminate all infidels (not sure if that includes the Castro family). Hope to see you moonlighting for them soon, things are mighty quiet at the moment. Lively them up.

hutchrun on February 27, 2008 at 10:13 pm

You want to hold an entire religion guilty of sin due to the actions of a minority.- Audacious
“The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.” (Story of Civilization, vol.1, Our Oriental Heritage, New York 1972, p.459)- Will Durant
There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like “punishing” the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate.

hutchrun on February 27, 2008 at 10:21 pm

FreethinkerNY posted:
[I have never seen I act of hostility directed towards Muslims.]
Or how about vice-versa? Seen any Muslims commit acts of terror?
[By the way, do Hindus in India suffer from Islamophobia or do they suffer from Islamic aggresssion and oppression?]
Neither, they’re too busy beating up Christians or havencha heard?

Norman Blitzer on February 27, 2008 at 10:29 pm

I am not suprprised by the lack of bias-we are an imperfect country, but a good one nonetheless. I remember reading an article in parade magazine, which interviewed arabs in the US militar, and one person said he got BETTER treatment in the military, than outside it-what say you?

mindy1 on February 27, 2008 at 10:36 pm

hutchrun, you’ve got your foot so far in your mouth it’s coming out of your ass.
How many Jews have been slaughtered by Christians over the past two millennium?

Norman Blitzer on February 27, 2008 at 10:39 pm

Neither, they’re too busy beating up Christians or havencha heard? – Norman Blitzer
That`s when the `Christians` are not beating up on them.

hutchrun on February 28, 2008 at 12:08 am

hutchrun, you’ve got your foot so far in your mouth it’s coming out of your ass. – Norman Blitzer
I dunno. I kinda saw the toes peeping out of yours.

hutchrun on February 28, 2008 at 12:10 am

ENTIRE QURAN IS A MANUAL ON JIHAD
http://www.voi.org/books/tcqp/chi3.htm
In any case, Islam could not have sounded anything like a message of peace to Muhammad�s contemporaries. He started by cursing that his clansmen who did not concede his claim, would cook in the fire of hell for all time to come. The list included his indulgent uncle and protector, Abu TAlib. Before long, he would consign his dead mother also to the same dreadful place.
The curses were soon backed by street brawls which his boisterous Muslims managed to provoke. He had a real tough lot on his side, apart from his ideology which animated the lowest passions in human nature. Margoliouth says: �The persons whose accession to Islam was most welcomed were men of physical strength, and much actual fighting must have taken place at Meccah before the Flight; else the readiness with which the Moslems after the Flight could produce form their number tried champions would be inexplicable. A tried champion must have been tried somewhere: and no external fights are recorded or are even the subject of an allusion for this period. The Prophet himself is said on one occasion after reciting Surah xxxvi to have flung dust on the heads of his opponents… The growth of the new religion tended to spread discord between families and so keep the city in a state of turmoil and confusion. Those who for any reason felt aggrieved with their condition could gratify their ill-will by joining Mohammed; and some probably did this in momentary pique. Desperadoes of whom the whole city was ashamed seem to have been received into the fold of Islam; they could then on the strength of their faith claim to be better than their neighbours.�

hutchrun on February 28, 2008 at 12:20 am

Once again Aydacious chimes inharrassing Ms. Schlussel with cry baby statements. If these dogs of islam continue their crusade of violence we should exterminate the perpetrators and keep a wary eye on the entire group. Thank G-d for the patriot act you piece of garbage.

samurai on February 28, 2008 at 1:07 am

DS: And their statements were ignorant. One man shouted that a hijab is a “necessary religious item,” but it isn’t. The Koran says nothing about wearing a headscarf, nor does Islamic law.
Debbie
That’s not exactly accurate. Quran 24:31 has this to say (Hilali-Khan translation):
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands or one eye or both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms, etc.) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husband’s sons, their brothers or their brother’s sons, or their sister’s sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allah to forgive you all

Infidel Pride on February 28, 2008 at 2:29 am

I saw the segment. In one part a dhimmi hugs a fully garbed young Muslim woman. People, Muslim women are not even allowed to talk to Muslim men, other that a father or husband. Exception: where doing so advances Islam’s quiet aggression in Western Civilization. Strategic deception is sacramental to Muslims. Carpet humpers believe that truth belongs to allah, and his slaves (abdullahs) may lie to advance his bizarre god interest in seeing Muslim men point their asses in the air.
As for the Islamic basis of the slave garb, hadith sources point to Muhammad’s solution to a problem stated to him by his military commander, Walid al-Khalid. After his robbers captured a tribe, they exterminated all the men and divided up females as sex booty. There was much squabbling over same. When al-Khalid reported the problem to Muhammed, it was then that he ordered that women be covered up, so that there beauty wouldn’t be seen by men; if jihadis couldn’t see the goods, then they wouldn’t fight over same. Some Muslims interpret the hadith as of reference only to circumstances where there are conflicting sex booty claims.

supercargo on February 28, 2008 at 6:56 am

[That`s when the `Christians` are not beating up on them.]Posted by: hutchrun
Which was true at one time.
[hutchrun, you've got your foot so far in your mouth it's coming out of your ass. - Norman Blitzer
I dunno. I kinda saw the toes peeping out of yours.]Posted by: hutchrun
Apparently sticking your foot in your mouth has affected your eye sight.

Norman Blitzer on February 28, 2008 at 1:13 pm

DEAR DEBBIE:
DID THEY FINALLY SUCCEED IN REMOVING MICHAEL SAVAGE’S WEBSITE???I CAN NOT GET THRU TO IT FOR DAYS NOW. YOU ARE WELL AWARE WHAT CAIR CAN DO TO REMOVE ONE’S 1ST AMENDEMENT RIGHTS – LET’S HOPE THEY WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL WITH MICHAEL.
ARA

ARA on February 28, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Well of course ABC would come down south and play “gotcha”. According to some of the lurking libs on this board, us redneck southern boys are racist and homophobic at the genetic level. Actually, our dispositions would be better if we could only acquire indoor plumbing. ; )
Seriously: DS makes an excellent observation based on her real world experience with Muslims. Its a different story when they think were’re not watching or listening.

Southernops on February 28, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Norman Blitzer: If you really need to know, my eyesight is perfect. One of the few who can see in total darkness.
But you obviously are ready to be a mohameddan.

hutchrun on February 28, 2008 at 8:41 pm

I will only become a Muslim when Jesus comes back and establishes Islam on Earth. ROFL!!!

Norman Blitzer on February 28, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Let me reword that:
I will only become a Muslim when Jesus comes back and establishes Islam all over the world. ROFL!!!

Norman Blitzer on February 28, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Along with the many excellent notations, above, here’s Michelle Malkin’s suggestion (it’d be a very short film, unless of course they want to show the corpse torn limb-from-limb, a la Fallujah, 2004):
“Memo to ABC News stuntpeople: Hey, how about sending an undercover actor wearing a shirt with WestergaardĂ­s cartoon [bomb in the turban] and American, Danish, and Dutch flag pins into a Friday mosque crowd?”
Gotta admit — sure would be an interesting bit of videotape, if the cameraman could make it out alive and with his equipment!

theendisnear on February 29, 2008 at 10:10 am

SO yo are saying that no where in the Quran it talksabout women wearing a head scarf????
Dude have u read the Quran??? do you want me to show you the exact verse that clearly tells you what a hijab is and that it is a mandatory thing to do???
you will get hate back from those whom you show hatred to! so don’t pretend that you are doing nothing but showing love to them, because if you were you they wouldn’t talk behind your back as if they would slaughter you!

Mona on October 19, 2009 at 10:06 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field