In this country and many around the world the Muslim religion has received the most blame for the acts of horrible tradegites that have taken place in this world of ours. In recent events the San Bernardino massacar during a holiday party and the Pairs attacks became essentially the last straw for many individuals across the country regarding the infamous Muslim Religion. Although many believe that all Muslims are the problem, is that really true or is it easier to just blame a religion that already has stigmas attached to it. The question here is, does the media portray what they want you to believe or what is really the problem. How do different news sources portray the news? Are they bias? Do they just tell the facts and leave opinions out? Do they manipulate the situation to sound better or worse to try to get the reader to believe what they want? In this article I will do my best to analyses articles on this very prominent topic and you may deciede for yourself if you want to read between the lines of the media or take every word they write to heart.
San Bernardino is the countries recent victim affected by terrorism. On December 2nd, 2015 a married Muslim couple decide to shoot up a holiday office party where the husband Farook maintained employment. With this devastating news Obama made a declaration addressing the horrid events. The L.A Times article starts out by quoting Mr. Obama. “ The San Bernardino massacre was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people.” He then proceeded to say, “This married couple had gone down the dark path of radicalization.” When the president uttered these words on national television, there was no such evidence that they belonged to a greater organization of terrorist. With this as a known fact, even the president of The United States automatically believed that the Muslim couple was high profile terrorist because of the God they chose to believe in.
The president continues to criticize the Islamic State naming them “thugs and killers, part of a cult of death… they amount for a tiny fraction of Muslims.” Obama also stated “ISIL does not speak for Islam.” In the end of his speech he urged Americans to come together and with hold discrimination. In the beginning of his speech he clearly stated that this Muslim couple was apart of ISIS full well not knowing if that was true or not. The question to ask is how can the president judge and discriminate against a specific religion. Then turn around and voice that individuals need to reframe from such actions all in the same speech?
The L.A. Times article the goes in depth of Malik the wife of the couple. “Malik became deeply religious when attending college, before long she began posting extremist statements on social media after she came to the U.S.” Her family expressed to the article that “her decelerations were of grave concern.” Yet they did nothing and said nothing. Malik had attended Al Huda mostly everyday. Dr. Ayeshia Siddiga says that “ Al Huda institutes teach women “fundamentalist” ideas nonetheless it is necessarily not jihadist curriculum.” “Al Huda does not promote violence, but takes an individual to that line.” If the religion is represented by many individual with them expressing we do not believe in violence, why is there a “line” that may or may not be crossed?
This article questioned Farooks father who states the his son “agreed with the ideology of ISIS leaders” and that “he was “obsessed” with Israel.” When father Farook was later questioned about the very eye opening imprisoning statement, he shut down. His lawyer then proclaimed “he is on medication he does not recall making any statement to anyone.” Could it be that Farooks father believed his son followed the wrong ideals and stated such thoughts? Then realizing what came spilling out of his mouth? Then trying to blame it on his medication to take it all back, knowing how bad it made him and the religion look?
In an article from mediatite.com an attorney associated with the family of the couple who killed 14 individuals; expressed that “There was nothing to show that Malik was extreme.” The lawyer also proclaimed “Farook was a normal guy in every sense of the word.” After stating his thoughts Mohammad Abuershaid continued saying “There is a lot of motivation at this time to emphasize or create incidents that will cause gun control or prejudice or hatred towards the Muslim community.” Is Mr. Mohammad Abuershaid claiming this was a fake attack by the government officials to perceive negativity to the public about Muslims? Or is it the blame game coming to light.
From the pervious article it proclaims that the Muslim couple showed no signs of extremism, that they were just a normal married couple. Although stated, an article from CBSNews.com portrays a different story about Mrs. Malik. A former classmate of hers states to CBSNews “Malik showed drastic changes after a trip to Saudi Arabia.” “ She used to tell us that this is real life. We are a nation that has strayed from the right path.” Who’s to say what is the “right path” of life? What was her meaning of the “right path?” Are all beliefs of the “right path” different from one another?
Malik vouchsafed her following to ISIS right before her and her husband killed many individuals. The article from NYDailyNews renders the comment that Mrs. Malik “was a more zealous follower of the Muslim faith beginning three years ago.” The NY Times also stated that Mr. Farook was an observant Muslim and that “he was very well known in the Muslim community.” Also that “he showed to services almost everyday and as early as four in the mornings.” Are these two news sources trying to perceive that these two individuals were to involved with their religion? Can being to devoted cause the lines of right and wrong to be blurred? Is there such a thing as being to involved in ones religion?
The beginning of the last straw towards the Muslim religion was the Pairs attacks that killed more than 300 individuals and injuring many more. The attack took place on November 13th, 2015. Even with the attacks on Pairs, The Atlantic confirmed that France would still take in 30,000 Syrian refugees. Even with the increased fear that terrorist are benefiting from the refugee crisis to get into countries. The Atlantic then states, “Many of the fleeing Syrian were “tormented” by the Islamic State.” The article quoted Merkel saying “there are difficult decisions, possibly the most difficult decisions between freedom and security, and things are being in favor of security, and that is right.” Is freedom of religion becoming so dangerous that governments need restriction to prevent massacres?
In the article from BBC.com they interviewed Onfray who made a controversial statement. “Why do we have a problem of terrorism? Muslims are not stupid. We bring war to their homes and kill them by tens and hundreds, and then expect them to be nice. They are not nice, and why should they be?” Many may disagree with him and some may agree. Are these events of terrorism an epidemic of Tit For Tat?
Vocativ.com published comments from ISIS followers. One stated “Allah Akbar, the horror arrived to the forts of the cross #Pairs. ISIS should claim responsibility for the operation to show the world that Muslims have heavy feet.” “ The west used to live quietly and set fire in the Muslim lands with wars, but after the emergence of ISIS the game has changed.” Though individuals did not act, they believe that innocent individuals should pay for the government’s choices. Although individuals do not agree many paid the ultimate price when countries killed their innocent civilians.
The New York Times listened to the Muslims to hear their side of the story. There was not one public appeal for the solidarity of Muslims after the Pairs attack. Few supplications to not confuse practitioner of Islam with whom preach jihad. With the consistent complicated relationship with the Muslim community France has had for years, with the attacks it is tipping to outright distrust to all Muslims. Muslims according to New York Times “were already feeling the backlash. It started right away.” The writer quoted an individual who believes “the grim public mood, is bubbling up. Deep shades of distinction that previously separated Frances political groups on how to handle the terrorist threat, or even how to deal with Frances large Muslim community, are blurring.” Maybe Muslims feel no support from their countries leaders due to all the horrendous attacks. Is it a feeling of non-tolerance and fed-up-ness spreading to countries against all and every Muslim?
Many Muslims are very upset with the attacks that are happening all around the world. You have to think to yourself if all Muslims were bad individuals and out to get everyone that disagrees with their religion we would have attacks all of the time. When reading the news or listening to it on television you have to pay close attention to what is being said or written. What news source is it? Do they have a political agenda that if individuals come to a common ground to force and disband a certain religion, would they benefit form this action. Being open minded in all situation could recover this world from the tragedies we face everyday. Be kind grateful and respectable, you never know when your last day is upon you.