March 1995, pg. 20
Speaking Out
Emerson's Jihad in America
by Paul Findley
The campaign to defame Islam in America is alive and robust. As
I watched Steven Emerson's hour-long production, "Jihad in
America," broadcast recently over national television, a sage
comment by an eminent Jew came to mind.
The late I.F. "Izzy" Stone, author, lecturer, commentator,
historian and for many years publisher of a weekly newsletter, once
told me, "Jews never had it so good as they've had it in the
United States." But, discussing their concern about Israel's
position in the Mideast, he cautioned, "They are afraid about
the future. They feel they are at war, and many of them feel they
have to fight and keep fighting." He added, "When people
are at war it is normal for civil liberties to suffer."
When I interviewed him, although in declining health and with failing
eyesight, he was still one of America's most respected journalists,
a hero to academics.
"Israel," he said, peering through the thick lenses of
his eyeglasses, "is on the wrong course. This period is the
blackest in the history of the Jewish people. Arabs need to be dealt
with as human beings."
If alive today, Stone would have cited Emerson's television production
as wartime propaganda. Because many Israelis see Islam as an enemy,
Emerson seems constrained to see Islam as his own enemy.
One of Emerson's techniques is casting the word jihad in
the worst possible light. Emerson fails to note that in common Arab
usage jihad means struggle, not military onslaught. Literally,
jihad means to strive, struggle and exert effort. It is a
basic Islamic concept that covers, at one extreme, struggles against
evil inclinations within oneself and, at the other, struggling on
the battlefield if absolutely necessary for self-defense. Acts of
individual, group or state terrorism are alien to Islam.
Jihad can involve military action only when legitimate states
use force to defend the weak, protect society or establish justice.
But Emerson presents it only as violent, explosive, indiscriminate
carnage. This sets it apart from campaigns familiar to Americans
that are entirely nonviolent like "wars" on poverty and
illiteracy, a usage much like the use of "jihad"
by Muslims.
The film is replete with unsupported scare tactics. At one point
Emerson declares that Muslims want to establish an "Islamic
empire," but offers no proof whatever. At another he warns
that the single, isolated bombing of the World Trade Center in New
York City is a certain forerunner of terrible acts of destructive
violence nationwide.
He puts a false interpretation on a few emotional scenes videotaped
at programs to raise funds to finance Muslim struggles in Afghanistan.
Without any proof he presents them as sinister, subversive schemes
to finance "Islamic terrorism" here "on American
soil."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), based in Washington,
DC, concludes: "From beginning to end, 'Jihad in America' and
its producer, Steven Emerson, offered nothing but distorted snippets
of fiery rhetoric, unsupported allegations and spurious juxtapositions
to build a case against the Muslim community in America.
Acts of individual, group or state terrorism are
alien to Islam.
"The film was portrayed as factual and educational, while
it contained many factual errors. The most obvious error was defining
jihad as 'holy war.' We see this documentary as just one
aspect of a recent trend toward anti-Islamic 'McCarthyism' by the
media. In terms of potential hate crimes, it is now 'open season'
on Muslims in America."
Emerson's recurring theme is that big trouble is brewing here because
of the "radicalism of Islam" and the clandestine methods
he attributes to it. He warns of "Islamic extremists committed
to jihad in America." The only evidence he offers to
support this forecast, according to CAIR's word-by-word examination
of the transcript, consists of sound bites—brief cuttings
from filmed coverage of meetings—in which U.S. Muslims were
being urged to help finance Islamic struggles, but, contrary to
Emerson's portrayal, the struggles were in other parts of the world,
not in America.
Emerson deserts the truth in his zeal to misrepresent Islam as
a barbaric, underground movement. For example, he leaves the impression
that he was able to gain access to secret video tapes of clandestine
meetings. In truth, almost all of the videos from which he clipped
have been available routinely to the public. They were taken at
public, not secret, meetings attended by locally elected mayors
and other public officials, including, on one occasion, a representative
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Emerson tries to give Islam an unjustified ugly, gruesome appearance
by quoting an Islamic militant as follows: "Allah's religion,
may He be praised, must offer skulls, must offer martyrs. Blood
must flow. There must be widows, there must be orphans. Hands and
limbs must be cut..." This suggests to viewers a dreadful jihad
in America. An examination of the entire video makes clear that
the speaker, a recruiter for volunteers to help the Afghans, referred
only to Afghanistan and the awful price Muslims there have been
paying. Had Emerson explained that Allah is simply the Arabic word
for God, viewers would have avoided the false impression that the
Muslim God is different from the Christian God.
In two brief interludes of the program, Emerson said only a few
Muslims are terrorists, but this caveat was so fleeting it would
register only with viewers who watched intently. These gestures
to peace-loving U.S. Muslims were quickly obliterated. At one point
Emerson declared, "Our investigation has uncovered more than
30 groups that fund radical Islamic activities and operate under
tax-exempt status."
By failing to identify the 30 groups, Emerson has put all Muslim
charitable organizations under a cloud of suspicion.
No Link to Terrorism
To his credit, a few days after the presentation, Ambassador Philip
Wilcox, coordinator of the Office of Counter-Terrorism of the U.S.
Department of State, declared: "There is no link between Islam
and violence and terrorism. That is a canard which we want to dismiss
at the outset. Nor is there a worldwide Islamic network somehow
waging jihad against the West. This is a concept that's brooded
about sometimes, and there is virtually no intelligence information
to suggest that such a network exists."
In a commentary in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jack Shaheen,
professor emeritus at Southern Illinois University, calls the Emerson
program "perilous television, pandering to stereotypes that
feed collective hatreds. The program's poisonous images encourage
Americans to believe that all Muslims in the United States and their
charitable and academic organizations are laundering money for a
holy war in the Mideast. As a result...some peace-loving Muslims
who genuinely respect the United States will likely be victimized
by vicious slurs or hate crimes."
Former Congressman Paul Findley (R-IL) is chairman of the Council
for the National Interest. |