Sunday, March 22, 2015

Times of India exposes: JUSTICE INDIA : All 16 UP cops accused in '87 Meerut massacre let off

Times of India exposes: JUSTICE INDIA


ePaper

Mar 22 2015 : The Times of India (Mumbai)
All 16 UP cops accused in '87 Meerut massacre let off

Sana Shakil

New Delhi:


42 Muslims Picked Up From Near Mosque & Shot

All 16 Uttar Pradesh cops who were accused of killing 42 Muslims in Meerut city were on Saturday acquitted in the 28-year-old Hashimpura massacre case by a Delhi trial court for want of evidence.Giving the accused the benefit of doubt in the sensational 1987 case, the court sa id there was lack of evidence, especially regarding the identity of the accused.
The detailed judgment of the court was not made available, but sources said the judge, in his order, said there were no doubts that the incident had occurred but there were many doubts if the accused were the actual culprits.
Fourteen of the 16 accused were present in the court, and expressed relief over the ruling. However, survivors and relatives of the victims said they were disappointed and would file an appeal.
Additional sessions judge Sanjay Jindal referred the case to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority for rehabilitation of the survivors.
All the 16 accused, who were out on bail, were Provincial Armed Constabulary personnel at the time of the incident. According to the prosecution, 19 PAC men came to Hashimpura on May 22, 1987, and picked up about 50 Muslims from a congregation of 500 outside a mosque.The victims were reportedly shot by the accused PAC men and their bodies thrown into a canal. The prosecution said 42 people had perished in the 1987 massacre in Meerut. In 2006, all the accused were put on trial and faced charges of murder, attempt to murder, tampering with evidence and conspiracy. However, three of the accused and many witnesses passed away during the trial.According to observers, the fact that crucial eyewitnesses either died or could not be traced led to no conviction in the case. Pertinently , the judge also said that there was lack of evidence regarding the identity of accused. The case was transferred to Delhi on the Supreme Courts's di rection in September 2002.The CB-CID of Uttar Pradesh police, which probed the case, had listed 161 people as witnesses. Those acquitted are Suresh Chand Sharma, Niranjan Lal, Kamal Singh, Budhi Singh, Basant Ballab, Kunwar Pal Singh, Budha Singh, Rambir Singh, Leela Dhar, Hambir Singh, Mokam Singh, Shami Ullaha, Sarwan Kumar, Jaipal Singh, Mahesh Prasad and Ram Dhayan. Except Mahesh Prasad and Kunwar Pal Singh, all were present in court for the hearing.
The prosecution said though the accused had been acquitted, there was no doubt about the occurrence of the incident. “The court has given benefit of the doubt to the accused regarding their identification and not regarding the incident. The fact that the court referred the case to Delhi Legal Service Authority for rehabilitation of the victims shows that the incident is not in doubt. I will give my report to the government. It is for the government to decide the further course of action as to whether the state wants to file an appeal,“ special public prosecutor Satish Tamta said.
The victims' families and some survivors termed the ruling “unfortunate“ and “denial of justice“. Babuddin, one of the survivors and eye-witnesses to the incident, said he could not recognise the PAC personnel in court as they were wearing helmets when the incident had occurred. “We are very sad as justice has been denied to us.I could not identify them before the court as they had worn helmets and nearly three decades have passed since the incident. Only because of this one mistake, the verdict was passed against us even though all other evidence was against them,“ he said.
Two other survivors and eye-witnesses--Usman and Mujibur Rehman were also disappointed. The verdict, however, was welcomed by the accused who said the long ordeal was finally over. “I am satisfied that justice is finally done. We faced the trial for last 28 years. During this time time, I failed to do anything for my family and kids. I was a head constable at the time of the alleged incident. I am going to retire soon and am still a head constable,“ 59-year-old Niranjan, one of the persons who was acquitted, said.
“We had to face such a long trial. That itself was a punishment despite the fact that I was not even present at the spot at the time of the incident. However, I am happy that the court finally did justice to us,“ another accused said. Advocates Salar M Khan and L D Mual, who appeared for several accused, said none of the eye witnesses had identified the accused in the court as those involved in the massacre.
Mar 22 2015 : The Times of India (Mumbai)
Hashimpura verdict opens old wounds
Sandeep Rai
Meerut:


`Waited For Hubby For Yrs, Only His Body Came Back'
Hashimpura for many of its residents is not just the name of a village, it is a word that translates into death and massacre.After all, it was here that 42 young Muslim men, who were taken away from their homes on the night of May 22, 1987, were found floating the next day in a nearby canal, their bodies riddled with bullets.
The men were mercilessly killed near the Murad Nagar canal and thrown into the water. Twenty-eight years later, when the Tis Hazari court in Delhi on Saturday acquitted all the 16 accused for want of evidence, there was a mournful quiet in the village near Meerut. Some, though, were angry , protesting loudly that it was a “massacre of justice“.
The Hashimpura massacre happened during the 1987 Hindu-Muslim riots in the city . On the night of May 22, 10 PAC personnel rounded up around 45 Muslim men and took them to the outskirts of Murad Nagar near the Upper Ganga Canal.The men were shot at point blank range and thrown into the canal. The incident led to a massive furore. In May 2000, 16 of the 19 accused surrendered (the rest had died of natural causes in the interim) but were later released on bail. The trial was then transferred by Supreme Court to the Tis Hazari court in Delhi.
Zaibun Nisha remembers vividly the one last look that her husband, Mohd Iqbal, gave her 28 years ago, moments before he was escorted by policemen on that fateful May night.She never saw him again. News came a few days later that Iqbal was among the 42 men that PAC personnel had picked up and later found in the canal. Zaibun was just 25 at that time and had delivered a baby girl two days earlier. Now 53, Zaibun said her wounds have been reopened.“Even 28 year later, I still dream of that night. I still see my husband giving me that one last look. I waited for him for years, but he never came back. His body did. This is nothing but a mockery of justice,“ she said, tears welling up in her eyes. Another resident of Hashimpura, Zarina, is inconsolable. She lost her husband and 16-year-old son in the mayhem. “Many were mercilessly beaten in Police Lines and then in jail. But at least some returned. My husband Zaheer and my son Javed never came back.“
TOI also met Zulfikar Nasir, a survivor. in the incident. “I was shot in the shoulder and thrown in the canal. But I managed to hold onto a bush and saved myself from being drowned,“ he said, hours after the verdict. “I saw people writhing in pain but could do nothing. I ran from there and reached a village where I was treated for my injuries. I went back home months later.“ Zulfikar added: “I am really pained to know about the verdict. I was one of the witnesses. And, here the court has set free the accused, for want of evidence.“
Mar 22 2015 : The Times of India (Mumbai)
`In 28 yrs, witnesses can die, forget details
Sana Shakil
New Delhi


Twenty eight years after the Hashimpura massacre in which over 40 Muslims were murdered in cold blood allegedly by Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) personnel, the verdict acquitting all the 16 accused for want of evidence was termed a “mockery of justice“ by legal experts.
The massacre had occurred in 1987 during riots in Meerut. The victims were allpicked up from the Hashimpura mohalla allegedly by the police personnel of 41st company of the PAC during a search operation. Legal luminaries say this case speaks volumes about faults with our judicial system as not only did the case take this long to reach its conclusion, the fact that no one was held accountable for the killings also raises questions on the credibility of the police force when it probes cases against its own men. The case was transferred to Delhi in 2002 after an SC order.
In its verdict on Saturday , the court did not dispute the occurrence of the killings and referred the matter to Delhi Legal Services Authority for rehabilitation of survivors.But acquitting 16 PAC men, the court said there was lack of evi dence regarding identity of the accused. Lawyers say the identification would have obviously been difficult as many survivors --who were waiting for justice and were key witnesses--had passed away during the prolonged trial.
“This case is a glaring example of how delays result in miscarriadge of justice. 28 years after the incident, witnesses either die or their memories fade away . It cannot be disputed that many lost their lives in this barbaric incident and yet not a single person has been found guilty . This is mockery of justice,“ noted criminal lawyer Majeed Memon said.
Counsel for the survivors and family members of victims, senior advocate Rebecca John said it was a classic example of justice delayed being justice denied. “Even after 28 years of the brutal killings, if we are unable to fix the accountability of this crime on anyone, we should hang our heads in shame. Many crucial witnesses died or could not be traced, Investigating officers died and important medical evidence got destroyed during the prolonged trial. This is a slap on the face of speedy justice in our country ,“ John said.
For the full report, log on to http:www.timesofindia.com
Mar 22 2015 : The Times of India (Mumbai)
Justice denied to us, say UP carnage survivors


42 Muslims Picked Up From Near Mosque & Shot
All 16 Uttar Pradesh cops who were accused of killing 42 Muslims in Meerut city were on Saturday acquitted in the 28-year-old Hashimpura massacre case by a Delhi trial court for want of evidence.Giving the accused the benefit of doubt in the sensational 1987 case, the court sa id there was lack of evidence, especially regarding the identity of the accused.
The detailed judgment of the court was not made available, but sources said the judge, in his order, said there were no doubts that the incident had occurred but there were many doubts if the accused were the actual culprits.
Fourteen of the 16 accused were present in the court, and expressed relief over the ruling. However, survivors and relatives of the victims said they were disappointed and would file an appeal.
Additional sessions judge Sanjay Jindal referred the case to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority for rehabilitation of the survivors.
All the 16 accused, who were out on bail, were Provincial Armed Constabulary personnel at the time of the incident. According to the prosecution, 19 PAC men came to Hashimpura on May 22, 1987, and picked up about 50 Muslims from a congregation of 500 outside a mosque.The victims were reportedly shot by the accused PAC men and their bodies thrown into a canal. The prosecution said 42 people had perished in the 1987 massacre in Meerut. In 2006, all the accused were put on trial and faced charges of murder, attempt to murder, tampering with evidence and conspiracy. However, three of the accused and many witnesses passed away during the trial.According to observers, the fact that crucial eyewitnesses either died or could not be traced led to no conviction in the case. Pertinently , the judge also said that there was lack of evidence regarding the identity of accused. The case was transferred to Delhi on the Supreme Courts's di rection in September 2002.The CB-CID of Uttar Pradesh police, which probed the case, had listed 161 people as witnesses. Those acquitted are Suresh Chand Sharma, Niranjan Lal, Kamal Singh, Budhi Singh, Basant Ballab, Kunwar Pal Singh, Budha Singh, Rambir Singh, Leela Dhar, Hambir Singh, Mokam Singh, Shami Ullaha, Sarwan Kumar, Jaipal Singh, Mahesh Prasad and Ram Dhayan. Except Mahesh Prasad and Kunwar Pal Singh, all were present in court for the hearing.
The prosecution said though the accused had been acquitted, there was no doubt about the occurrence of the incident. “The court has given benefit of the doubt to the accused regarding their identification and not regarding the incident. The fact that the court referred the case to Delhi Legal Service Authority for rehabilitation of the victims shows that the incident is not in doubt. I will give my report to the government. It is for the government to decide the further course of action as to whether the state wants to file an appeal,“ special public prosecutor Satish Tamta said.
The victims' families and some survivors termed the ruling “unfortunate“ and “denial of justice“. Babuddin, one of the survivors and eye-witnesses to the incident, said he could not recognise the PAC personnel in court as they were wearing helmets when the incident had occurred. “We are very sad as justice has been denied to us.I could not identify them before the court as they had worn helmets and nearly three decades have passed since the incident. Only because of this one mistake, the verdict was passed against us even though all other evidence was against them,“ he said.
Two other survivors and eye-witnesses--Usman and Mujibur Rehman were also disappointed. The verdict, however, was welcomed by the accused who said the long ordeal was finally over. “I am satisfied that justice is finally done. We faced the trial for last 28 years. During this time time, I failed to do anything for my family and kids. I was a head constable at the time of the alleged incident. I am going to retire soon and am still a head constable,“ 59-year-old Niranjan, one of the persons who was acquitted, said.
“We had to face such a long trial. That itself was a punishment despite the fact that I was not even present at the spot at the time of the incident. However, I am happy that the court finally did justice to us,“ another accused said. Advocates Salar M Khan and L D Mual, who appeared for several accused, said none of the eye witnesses had identified the accused in the court as those involved in the massacre.
---

Google links to Hashimpura Massacre:
About 43,900 results (0.23 seconds) 
  1. Hashimpura massacre accused set free

    The Hindu-13 hours ago
    A Delhi court on Saturday acquitted all 16 accused in the 28-year-oldHashimpura massacre case at Meerut in Uttar Pradesh. All the acquitted ...


  • Chronology: 1987 Hashimpura massacre
    The Indian Express-15 hours ago



  • Arab News

    Acquittal of Hashimpura massacre accused black day in Indian ...

    ummid.com-3 hours ago
    New Delhi: All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat, the umbrella body of Indian Muslim organizations Saturday expressed concern over a court ...

  • The Hindu

    Hashimpura massacre case: Court to pronounce verdict on March 21

    The Indian Express-21-Feb-2015
    A Delhi court on Saturday fixed March 21 for pronouncing its judgement in the 1987 Hashimpura massacre case in which 42 members of the ...
    Hashimpura massacre case judgment postponed
    The Hindu-21-Feb-2015
    Explore in depth (17 more articles)
  • हाशिमपुरा जनसंहार: 27 साल बाद आए फैसले में सभी ...

    Jansatta-5 hours ago
    Hashimpura Massacre: इस मामले में मुख्य न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट, गाजियाबाद के समक्ष 1996 में आरोपपत्र दायर ...
    क्या है हाशिमपुरा नरसंहार
    नवभारत टाइम्स-5 hours ago
    Explore in depth (85 more articles)
  • पढ़िए हाशिमपुरा नरसंहार की दर्दभरी कहानी, गवाहों ...

    अमर उजाला-2 hours ago
    फरवरी 1986 में केंद्र सरकार ने बाबरी मस्जिद के ताले खोलने का आदेश दिया, तो वेस्ट यूपी में माहौल गरमा गया ...
  • Hashimpura massacre: A perfect case of miscarriage of justice, legal ...

    NewsHub.org-8 hours ago
    The massacre had occurred on May 22, 1987 during riots in Meerut city and the victims were picked up from the Hashimpura mohalla of the city ...
  • मेरठ नरसंहार: आरोपी पुलिसवाले बरी, 42 लोगों की ...

    दैनिक भास्कर-20 hours ago
    नई दिल्ली। 1987 में मेरठ के हाशिमपुरा गांव में हुए नरसंहार के मामले में शनिवार को दिल्ली की एक अदालत ने ...
  • What happened in Hashimpura 28 years ago?

    TwoCircles.net-2 hours ago
    The experience at Hashimpura Massacre was such an experience for me, says Vibhuti Narayan Rai, then Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad ...
  • हाशिमपुरा हत्याकांडप्रकरणी उ.प्र.च्या १६ ...

    Loksatta-8 hours ago
    १९८७ सालच्या हाशिमपुरा हत्याकांडात आरोपी असलेल्या उत्तर प्रदेश पोलिसांच्या १६ कर्मचाऱ्यांची ...
  • J&K fends off second militant attack in two days

    Scroll.in-4 hours ago
    A Delhi court on Saturday acquitted 16 members of the Provincial Armed Constabulary in the 1987 Hashimpura massacre. The court said that ...
  • Friday, March 20, 2015

    Ruthless ATS framed me in terror case - DNA English Daily, Mumbai, India

    http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-ruthless-ats-framed-me-in-terror-case-2070380

    DNA logo

    Ruthless ATS framed me in terror case

    Friday, 20 March 2015 - 6:40am IST | Agency: dna | From the print edition

    Accused in 2006 Aurangabad arms haul case says he illegally detained for eight days before being shown as arrested, and was booked under MCOCA for no apparent reason


    • Khatib (in black) at the office of Jamiat Ulema-E-Maharashtra after he was released on bail, on Thursday. (L) Co-accused Abdul Khan
    Hours after Khatib Imran Akhil Ahmed walked out of Arthur Road prison on Thursday, nine years after he was arrested for his alleged involvement in the 2006 Aurangabad arms haul case, the 32-year-old said he had been framed in the case.
    Struggling to hold back tears, Khatib said he was tortured by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad, which he described as a ruthless agency, and branded as a terrorist. A special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court presided by judge A L Pansare had on Wednesday granted him bail.
    "As per police records, I was shown arrested on June 7, 2006, but the fact is that I was under detention by the ATS since May 30. I have raised this issue in the court and produced evidence in the form of an email that I had sent to the ATS on their demand," said Khatib at press conference organised by the Jamiat Ulema-E-Maharashtra, an NGO which secured his bail and provides legal help to many terror accused.
    Khatib, now 32, said his email to ATS had a photograph of him. "Why would anyone send his photograph to ATS? The mail clearly shows that I was under their detention and had to accede to their demands."
    On May 8, 2006, an ATS team had intercepted a Tata Sumo and an Indica car on Chandwad-Manmad highway near Aurangabad and arrested three people. The cops had seized 30 kg of RDX, 10 AK-47 assault rifles and 3,200 bullets from their possession. Later, the police seized 13 kg of RDX, six AK-47s, 50 hand grenades and two swords from other suspects.
    While nine people were arrested in connection with the case, eight of them, including Khatib, have been granted bail.
    To further his claim of innocence, Khatib narrated a scene from the MCOCA court. "On February 12, 2015, the court was recording the statements of Amit Sinha and Amitabh Rajan, officials from the Maharashtra home department. They informed the court that the then home minister had asked them to apply MCOCA in this case, so we were booked under the stringent law," said Khatib at the Bhendi Bazar office of Jamiat.
    The accused was accompanied by his father Akheel Ahmed, a retired primary teacher from Parli. "My son was such a brilliant student that I was planning to send him abroad for higher studies. The case ruined our family. It affected the marriage of my other kids. I am compelled to believe that we were targeted by the ATS since we are minorities."
    Abdul Samad Shamsher Khan, another accused in the case who was present at Jamiat's office, said he too had been implicated. "The prosecution had said that Dhananjay Tayde, a deputy commissioner of police, had recorded my confession, but the DCP could not identify me in the court. In 2006, the ATS had only pointed to Tayde who was the accused and on that basis, he had brought out the confession.

    Thursday, March 19, 2015

    Bibi’s Ugly Win Will Harm Israel - By Jonathan Alter - The Daily Beast

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/18/bibi-s-ugly-win-will-harm-israel.html?via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition

    THE DAILY BEAST

    AT WHAT COST VICTORY?

    03.18.15

    Bibi’s Ugly Win Will Harm Israel

    A desperate Netanyahu used fear to grab the most seats in the election, but his rejection of a Palestinian state will further isolate the Jewish state.
    Jonathan Alter
    By Jonathan Alter
    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu won a big election Tuesday, but he won ugly by staking out a new position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is likely to harm his nation in the months ahead. 
    A reckoning is coming—faster than expected—for Netanyahu, his Likud Party and maybe even for the State of Israel itself. 
    Complete returns showed that Netanyahu’s Likud Party won 29 seats in the Knesset to 24 seats for the Zionist Union (formerly Labor) Party headed by Isaac Herzog, who ran a more spirited campaign than expected but almost certainly fell short of the support necessary to form a government. 
    Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin, whose job consists mostly of presiding over elections, said not long after the polls closed that he wants a coalition government and has given Netanyahu, Herzog and the other party leaders a couple of days to engage in a frenzy of (largely unconsummated) deal-making. But Herzog’s parliamentary math problem got worse as the evening wore on, and it’s hard to see where he finds the “mandates” (seats) to prevail. 
    Beset by European boycotts, rebuked by international tribunals, estranged from the president of the United States—it’s not a pretty picture.
    One big surprise was the performance of the Joint List, a coalition of usually fractious Arab parties that won 13 seats and finished third, far better than Arab Israelis ever have in the past. But their influence will be limited because Arab parties traditionally refuse to join the government so as to avoid being complicit in official Israeli policy that they loathe. 
    As the returns came in, the center-left and other critics of Netanyahu held out hope that Moshe Kahlon—whose center-right Kulanu Party won 10 seats—would nurse his anger at Netanyahu (in whose government he once served) and side with Zionist Union. But even that would be unlikely to yield enough seats to oust Netanyahu. The small religious parties that often hold the balance of power faded amid Bibi’s last-minute panicky bid for right-wing votes.
    That panic had a purpose. Netanyahu came back from the dead by doing something politicians almost never do—predicting his own defeat. He told base voters that he would lose if they didn’t abandon far-right-winger Naftali Bennett’s Habayit Hayeudi Party and flock back to Likud. Instead of trying to hide his desperation, he flaunted (or contrived) it, to great political effect, winning by several seats more than expected.  
    Like George W. Bush in his 2004 reelection campaign against John Kerry in the aftermath of 9/11, Netanyahu wielded security issues as a polarizing political weapon, overcoming personal unpopularity and a mediocre economic record with a campaign based largely on fear. It worked.    
    But at what cost? In the days before the election, Netanyahu accused the opposition of being manipulated by Americans, insulted Arabs for simply voting, doubled down on support for settlements in East Jerusalem and—most significantly—said there would be no Palestinian state on his watch, thereby confirming a view that critics always suspected he harbored.  
    Cynical about their politicians, some Israeli pundits predicted that Netanyahu would slip away from his new line, just as he this week repudiated his famous 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University in which he proclaimed, “Let us make peace,” and endorsed a two-state solution. 
    Bibi can try, but Monday’s comment set his feet in cement. “I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel,” Netanyahu told a website owned by his most generous supporter, American casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Should he go back on this pledge, his right-wing supporters would desert him and he would be forced to call another election next year that he would likely lose. 
    Netanyahu knows that intransigence on the Palestinians is harmful to his purported security priority—confronting a nuclear Iran. He knows that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and other countries can’t ally with Israel against Iran until he makes peace with the Palestinians. But he was willing to do what it takes to win. 
    Now the rest of the world will do what it takes to punish his government. That means that the “BDS” movement (Boycotts, Divestment, Sanctions) will likely move from the (sometimes anti-Semitic) fringe closer to the center of the debate on college campuses and in international forums. As the Palestinians pursue their case globally with more finesse than they once had, the Israeli policy—shorn of efforts to achieve peace—will look increasingly illegitimate. 
    And Bibi and Likud might be in for a rude shock at the United Nations. On Tuesday, moderate Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told CNN that it was “hard to imagine” there would be no consequences from Netanyahu’s new one-state views.  
    Bibi has placed all his chips on the Republican Congress, which has no say over how the U.S. votes in the U.N. Schiff—who often reflects the view of the White House—hinted that the Obama administration might consider selectively lifting the American veto in the Security Council that has protected Israel for more than six decades. 
    While the U.S. will no doubt continue to veto the most obnoxious U.N. resolutions, others (like those based on comments of U.S. officials about the need for a two-state solution) are now more likely to pass with the tacit support of the U.S., opening a new chapter in international pressure on Israel. 
    Beset by European boycotts, rebuked by international tribunals, estranged from the president of the United States—it’s not a pretty picture of the fate of America’s closest ally in the region.
    But that might be the fallout from the most bruising and consequential Israeli election in many years.

    Tuesday, March 17, 2015

    How does the media fuel Islamophobia?

    How does the media fuel Islamophobia?

    Posted by: Afia Ahmed Chaudhry
      Introduction
    We have to acknowledge that the media, more often than not, shapes and actively crafts public opinion rather than mirroring it. We still live in a time where the majority of people assume they are being fed facts as opposed to opinions or editorialised facts. They take the media, particularly the news, as the gospel truth. Most people accept the narratives unquestionably. So, if the papers say that we have a problem with Islamic extremism, it means we have a problem with Islamic extremism. If non-violent extremism is the same as violent extremism, then it is the same. If we are now left to define extreme ideas, what could that mean? For example, the idea that Jesus is going to come back defies the very laws of nature; so, in theory, surely that idea is extreme? Not to mention the belief in miracles which would require us to suspend the physical laws of the universe. By this logic we are left with an infinitesimal list of what could possibly constitute “extreme”, owing to its subjectivity and ultimate indeterminacy. This brings us to a critical question: what falls under politically-charged categories like “extremist” and “fundamentalist” – and what is the role of the media in legitimising these categories?
    The Media and Islamophobia
    What makes an extremist, “extreme”, is his or her recourse to violence (or the propensity to do so) as a means to get a point or message across. How can there then be such a thing as a non-violent extremism? It treads on common sense. But what are the indicators according to which this propensity is explicated and determined? In other words, when does a Muslim become an extremist i.e. a “threat”? Conveniently, there are no pre-established standards that define what it means to be a ‘threat’. More often than not, they are pragmatically employed by opportunistic politicians and Islamophobes who are unable to contribute any explanatory scope or power.
    But in our day and age, the aura of fear perpetuated by politicians and the media obscure our reality and produce their own artificially construed representation of that reality. To appreciate this we must understand that the very process of constructing a discourse (in this case the discourse surrounding “extremism” and “fundamentalism”) is a reality-defining process or, what some scholars have referred to as, “world-making”. In a politically-charged environment marred by the looming “threat” posed by “Muslim extremists”, objectivity is virtually impossible. The media no longer serves to challenge hegemonic narratives and discourses disseminated by governments; in fact, they now act as a fourth-branch of the government and a mouth-piece through which these narratives are normalised and brought into our homes. The media provides the government with the medium through which it can transcend the public/private scope and inculcate its disparaging narratives even within the most intimate domain: the house-hold. There are several ways in which the mainstream media goes about fulfilling this role. Stephen Schwartiz laments that:
    “We have reached the fourth anniversary of the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001. I am sorry to say that, in my view, the U.S. and Western media have completely failed to meet the challenge of reporting on Islam in the four years since then, or in reaction to the atrocities that followed, including the extremist violence in Iraq which I would not dignify with the titles “insurgency” or “resistance”; the Madrid metro and London underground bombings, and the terror assaults in Indonesia, Morocco, Turkey and elsewhere.”[1]
    The Myth of the “Muslim Tide”
    The media vastly overestimates the amount of Muslims living within their country’s borders. In a study conducted about Muslims in the West a number of myths about Muslims are addressed with regards to, among other topics, population, immigration and patriotism.[2] In a recent ‘Ipsos Mory’ study, the average French person overestimated that Muslims accounted for 31% of the French population, when in reality it is closer to 5%. The root cause of these gross misconceptions is due to the constant publication of content in the press highlighting and, indeed, hyperbolising the country’s ‘Immigration Crisis’.
    estimation
    When the media makes these egregious ‘errors’, they manifest and become a direct cause of the physical brutalisation that is visited upon Muslim citizens. A most notable example is the recent French Islamophobic attack on a Moroccan man who was stabbed 17 times, whilst his killer screamed ‘I am your God, I am your Islam.’[3] In other incidents, twenty-six mosques around France were attacked with firebombs, gunfire, pig heads and grenades. According to the French National Observatory Against Islamophobia, a total of 60 Islamophobic incidents were reported.[4] The very fact that such a gross miscalculation and estimation can occur highlights the extent to which the media can obscure a reality rather than presenting it. This is despite the media’s ostensible objective to supposedly create ‘informed citizens’ without which there can be no healthy, political engagement within society. More importantly, the purpose of nurturing informed citizens is to create social cohesion – yet the media’s bias and passive adoption of the Islamophobic narrative only serves to create deeply entrenched social and political antagonism and fuel an aura of hate. The rise of right-wing movements in the West is perhaps the best testimony to the media’s failure to live up to its most basic duties. In short, mainstream media is facing an existential crisis.
    The lack of any meaningful balance to countervail a prevailing opinion also heavily contributes to the rise in Islamophobic sentiment. Edward Said calls this the “Islam as News” phenomenon. One of the more prominent instances of this occurred in Canada in 2006. MacLean’s magazine, which is a Canadian version of The Times, published a polemical and Islamophobic article by Mark Steyn. The article opined that Muslims breed faster than mosquitos and that they would eventually constitute the majority of Europe, or what he sardonically calls ‘Eurabia’. When several Muslim Law students requested space in MacLean’s magazine to respond, MacLean’s stated that they would rather “Bankrupt the magazine” than afford the aforementioned Muslim Students any opportunity to provide balance to Steyn’s inflammatory point of view.
    Let us examine one fairly recent article published by The Telegraph to emphasise this point. In September 2014, Camilla Turner wrote an article entitled “Government donation to Muslim Charities Forum denounced as ‘Madness’.”[5] The article insinuated the MCF’s “alleged” connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. The author appended the term “alleged” to any allegation that she could not substantiate, but nevertheless wished to hyperbolise in order to create the impression that mainstream Muslim organisations were working hand-in-glove with “terrorists”. How did she make it stick?  Take a look at the following quote:
    “According to a report by American think tank Nine Eleven Finding Answers, five of these charities – Muslim Hands, Human Appeal International, Human Relief Foundation, Muslim Aid and Islamic Relief – were early participants in the Union of Good, a fundraising body with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, created to raise money for the terrorist group Hamas”.
    In order to understand the subtleties of these tactics, the choice of words need to be subtly scrutinised. Notice the term “Early Participants”?  Obviously, the author was implying that these charities no longer have a relationship with the impugned ‘Union of Good’ charity, but they did at one time; most likely when nobody was aware of any connection between the Union of Good and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is known in logic as the Historian’s fallacy – the analysis of historical information by relying on information that is available today but was not available to the party you are trying to smear at the time. Clearly, the author would claim that she was not accusing Islamic Relief of being involved with a “terrorist” organisation, but was simply presenting a historical fact – the purpose of which is to create a false impression in the mind of the reader that Mainstream Islamic organisations have had dealings with odious “terrorist” groups, thereby affirming the ‘Muslims are a fifth column’ narrative.
    What is all the more puzzling was the author’s reference to so-called expert, Sam Westrop – a right-wing pro-Israeli, pro-UKIP activist. This logical fallacy is known as the Appeal to False authority – the use of an ‘expert’ of dubious credentials to peddle an idea. What are Westrop’s credentials?
    A 22-year-old music graduate who appears as a ‘Director’, ‘Member’ or ‘Founder’ of half-baked ‘Think-Tanks’ that lack the academic rigor of any bona fide think-tank, and whose purpose is mainly, and almost exclusively, to advocate for attenuated interests on the right.[6] These interests include reactionary, reflexive Pro-Israel lobbying, as well as Anti-immigration and Euroskeptic activism. Westrop has worked closely with an organisation called Student Rights, which are banned from a number of Universities in Britain. The irony is completely lost on our journalist here, who relies on someone with ties to organisations that are themselves banned across the UK, in order to pontificate on the “dangers of Islamism”.
    Here is a select sampling from Westrop’s venomous diatribe in 2011:
    “[We] need to aggressively attack the very root… and cut the head off the network of groups and ideologies that work against Israel. We cannot be insular and solely Jewish, but we must work with…conservatives.  It is about being on the offensive – advancing with a spear rather than trembling behind a crumbling shield.”
    Sam Westrop’s hostility is seemingly not directed to fringe extremists per se but is grounded in a far more venomous radical discourse:
    “I did not find the Arabs romantic. I found them interestingly hostile. A mentality of very irrational hatred… mob mentality.”
    One can say that it is unfortunately quite traumatising, witnessing first-hand how the media can be the right hand to State fascism.
    With Islamophobia at an all-time high, we also see journalists, such as the likes of Cathy Newman,[7]monopolising on the fear of the general public and ‘stoking the fire’ with their misrepresentation of Muslim communities. 
    The employment of inflammatory and reactionary headlines, and the ever-rising dishonesty in news reporting, leaves us all with a sour taste in our mouths. A word of caution to the wise; take all with a pinch of salt, as today’s news reporting is indicative of a much wider issue; the media prioritises ink over blood.
    Sordid attempts at continuously inciting hatred towards such a significant minority will surely result in physical manifestation and the Muslim community ends up bearing the brunt of this severe injustice, as illustrated with the recent Chapel Hill Shootings.[8]
    The reader becomes saturated with a certain image of the Muslim and Islām whilst being completely ignorant of any opposing perspective or narrative, and therefore naturally believes that this lack of contestation is evidence of the truth-value of the anti-Islām/anti-Muslim narrative.
    Muslims and Terrorism: an Inextricable Relationship?
    When does an act of violence become an act of terrorism? And who determines when this re-characterisation occurs? The difference between the two terms is political; the term ‘violence’ is a neutral and descriptive term whereas the term ‘terrorism’ is politically charged and ideologically defined. The criterion, according to mainstream media’s standards, revolves around one fundamental question: was the act of violence perpetuated by a Muslim? It does not matter what the ideological motives or justifications for this act of violence are. Christian right-wing extremist, nationalist movements and other violent acts of racism are excluded from the category of “terrorism” – Muslims are excluded from this general rule of thumb. In fact, the loosely defined and politically-charged narrative of “war on terror” serves as a masquerade through which any idea, discourse or action which falls outside the orbit of secular-liberal ideology is suppressed.
    Understanding the Media Bias against Islām
    In reality, the biases which inform the media’s coverage of Islām is not the product of a post-9/11 phenomena, nor is it based purely on misinformation. Rather, the roots of this bias date back to the development of an anti-Islamic orientalist discourse, which constituted the identity of the West and continues to shape its discourse. This discourse is premised on the idea of Western superiority and the inferiority of the “rest”. This is because the West has democracy, rationalism and science whereas the “rest” does not. The West has matured whereas the “rest” are dependent on the “West”. The late Edward Said dealt with this orientalist bias at length in his book ‘Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world’.[9]
    The inability of mainstream media to live up to its obligations has had major implications on Muslim communities. A domineering ‘war on terror’ has stripped Muslims of any outlets through which they can express themselves, which in turn exacerbates the rise of ‘extremism’ – and thus, we are left in a vicious circle.
    What to do?
    Edward Said famously observed that “nations are narrations”.[10] Narratives are a reflection of structures of power. This is particularly true of how Muslims have been depicted in the mainstream media, and it therefore becomes a very important site of engagement. There are a number of things that Muslims can and, indeed, should do in order to resist these narratives, thereby resisting the aforementioned structures of power.
    The first is to engage in a critical reading of news stories and to not simply accept everything read without equivocation. Sifting through the facts, separating them from the editorialisation, and scrutinising the so-called experts relied upon. One will often find that the average news story embodies a confluence of agendas and interests.
    Secondly, Muslims need to advance a counter-narrative by using all the means available to them. This includes social media, blogs and perhaps community-run media installations, such as Islam Channel, 5Pillars, Iqra TV and Islam21C. The minbar can be a powerful tool to keep perspectives grounded in the Deen; the companions used the Jumma Khutba as an important mobilising tool, and this should be kept in mind.
    Finally, Muslims need to concentrate on being both politically aware and savvy. Understanding the political factors at work is instrumental and also leads to self-awareness, as is learning to place what is seen and read in its proper context. This includes historical, historiographical, ideological and philosophical contexts. If one is able to fathom these contexts, learning to respond adequately and commensurately will surely follow.
    Notes:
    [1] Four Years after September 11th: The Failure of Western Media, Stephen Schwartz (http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_7863-1522-2-30.pdf?090211042544)
    [2] 10 Myths about Muslims in the West, Doug Sanders, (http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/09/10-myths-about-muslims-in-the-west/)
    [9] Said, Edward (1997). Covering Islam: how the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world. New York: Random House.
    [10] Said, Edward (1994). Culture and Imperialism New York: Random House.