It’s with a heavy heart that I report this, for I so wanted it to be true, and now it might not be.
On Saturday I reported, based on many media accounts, that more than 1000 Norwegian Muslims formed a “ring of peace” around an Oslo synagogue on that day—the Sabbath. That was heartening: one bright spot in a world of inter-faith enmity.
Now reader Larry has called my attention to a piece at the site Winds of Jihad, which claims that the story was grossly exaggerated: that only about 20 Muslims showed up, not nearly enough to encircle the synagogue:
According to a local eyewitness, only about 20 or so Muslims formed the “ring of peace” around the Oslo synagogue. In fact, pictures from multiple angles show that there wasn’t enough people to form a ring, so the locals instead formed a horizontal line in front of the synagogue.
A local news outlet explained how the media got to its “1,300 Muslims” number. “According to police, there were 1300 persons present in the event. Very many of them ethnic Norwegians,” read a translated report from Osloby.
Further, the site reports another source claiming that the Muslim organizer of the event, Ali Chishti, might really be an anti-Semite who has actually said, “I hate Jews” and called for their extermination.
The site also notes this and gives a photo:
AFP reports almost identically, “More than 1,000 people formed a ‘ring of peace’ Saturday outside Oslo’s main synagogue at the initiative of a group of young Muslims. The newswire agency has no excuse for the false report, as it had a photographer taking shots of the “ring” at the scene–and one shows a man who appears to be at the end of the line of hand-holders, with his left hand in his pocket.
Here’s that photo:
Well, perhaps at least 20 Muslims (and many Norwegians) had the right motivations, but now we have to consider the possibility that this might have been political theater: a way for Muslims defuse possible Norwegian animus or suspicion of them or their faith. I have to admit that I was a bit put off by what was chanted at the demonstration—”No to anti-Semitism, no to Islamophobia”—as it diverted attention from the object of the demonstration to bigotry against Muslims (if not criticism of Islam), but I let that pass and didn’t mention it. Now it may actually reflect what the demonstration was really about.
I felt that I had to give this report, even though both of the links above come from what appear to be ideologically-driven websites. Perhaps a Norwegian reader can get the facts, or someone find out the skinny on the organizers. It would be sad if this one show of amity turned out to be not only exaggerated, but organized by an anti-Semite, perhaps for purposes other than those stated.
Sub
Does doing the right thing for the wrong reason devalue it?
*If* the wrong reason is to obfuscate a problem, silence critics and provide shelter for anti-Semites, then you bet your sweet bippy it devalues the positive act. That’s a hypothetical *if*, though, from someone sitting in his chair in Colorado.
I think it can.
When American right-wing xian bigots like Terry Jones criticize the actions of Muslims, they do so our of xenophobia rather than rational consideration of Islamic doctrine. Not to call this out is to support bigotry.
Theists often claim that theism inspires good deeds, and therefore theism should not be argued against. Sam Harris makes the point that there are always good secular reasons for doing a good deed, so the theist’s argument fails. Motivations matter.
Seriously? If the right thing is to cause the Infidels to drop their guard, then yes it devalues it. Consider the source and who would benefit from such a statement, every single time.
I read on Twitter that the Norwegian press is saying ‘200 – 300 muslims’ and the rest were Jews snd ethnic Norwegians.
https://twitter.com/DidrikSoderlind/status/569836025008267264
Other reports are saying the muslims present were Kurds and Shia muslims.
Not sure which report is true though.
I think the main thing that matters is that someone in the Norwegian muslim community decided to talk action. Even if it wasn’t such a popular move, hopefully something positive will grow from it.
Yeah I generally see it as positive. The issue here seems to be that the results did not live up to the hype…but put the hype aside, and IMO the results of many non-Jews coming together to symbolically protect a synagogue is still pretty good.
Sorry I didn’t realise the tweet wouldn’t show a link to translate.
Iva Arpi said in Swedish: I understand. Difficult for us who didn’t have friend there to judge, though.
Didrik Søderlind replied in Norwegian: There weren’t 1300 muslims, but also not as few as 20. Even the most muslim critical here say 200 – 300.
Lets see, 20 out of 1.6 billion. Yes, I see change coming. oh, nevermind.
Possibly there was some Bill O’Reilly reporting going on. Kind of like his reporting during the Falkland War. I don’t know how anyone could expect otherwise from him.
sub
I doubt anyone had planned on making an actual ring around the synagogue rather than a symbolic one. They would have to stand around the entire block. It would be quite impractical and everyone (except the 20 in front of the synagogue) would look rather silly.
According the Norwegian osloby article, Muhammad Ali Chisti says he used to believe in conspiracy theories, but now thinks Islam is about peace and tolerance.
http://www.osloby.no/nyheter/Muslimsk-ring-rundt-synagogen-7910254.html
Then maybe they should choose some other form of protest/support or be clear that it is symbolic. Making it PR theater may do adverse effect to their cause, if it indeed is what they wanted to show.
In the Norwegian media it was made very clear that it was a symbolic act, it was even said by the organizers. If foreign media failed to catch up on this, it’s not the organizers’ fault.
We need better reporting on this. I’m not sure we’re getting quality journalism on this. In either direction.
and sub
Yes, exceptionally crappy reporting. If what had really happened was a couple of dozen people taking a stand, that would have been a perfectly nice story. The fluctuating numbers and the questionable past (supposedly and hopefully, past) of one guy makes the whole thing into a muddle. Really too bad. Someone in there did something nice I am sure, but it’s lost in the murk.
What bothers me is that this was reported all around the world (I saw it in the newspapers, AP, Reuters, Yahoo, etc.). The state of journalism has degraded to what it was 500 years ago, except the misinformation travels far faster.
I called this out as a possible fraud in the comments for Jerry’s original, optimistic post. I was roundly criticized for being a hateful cynic.
Actually, all I was doing was exercising simple skeptical thinking and examining the evidence: photos of no more than half a dozen of the Muslims alleged to be encircling the synagogue
I love to say I told you so, so I told you so.
Come on, people, Muslims have had literally dozens of opportunities to repudiate such acts since 9/11. Did they demonstrate against Islamist violence then? No. Did they demonstrate after vicious Islamist terror attacks on London, or Madrid, or Mumbai, or against Malala Yousefsai? Of course not. They never do.
So why would they now? It was just public relations and the idiot news media swallowed it whole.
I simply asked myself what any intelligent observer should have: If they encircled the synagogue, why do the photos not show a wider view with more participants in it?
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those that haven’t got it.
–George Bernard Shaw
Are ALL Muslims responsible for the actions of individual Muslims then? Do you apply this same criterion to Christians, Buddhists, etc?
We have been told why it would have been impossible to encircle the synagogue. Let’s stick to the facts.
No, All Muslims are NOT responsible for the actions of a few, but polls in many Muslim countries show large concurrance:
These facts
Scary polls:
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
83% of Pakistanis support stoning adulterers
78% of Pakistanis support killing apostates
etc.
The same form of defense you may use in case of Nazis. Not all Nazis are responsible for war atrocities. Majority were regular German citizens. Does this make a problem of or our judgement about Nazism lesser in any way?
So what if some Nazis were not for killing Jews and protested? Should we stop blaming Nazis or Nazism then?
Islam is clearly explicit on the subject what to do with some categories of people and it serves as strong motivation for action leading to terrorist attacks or ISIS. Saying that not all Muslims are doing the same is just red herring to derail any serious discussion.
Perhaps you could post a link to that comment? I can’t seem to find it, nor the ensuing criticism.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/02/21/some-good-news-muslims-protect-a-synagogue/
My comment is #7.
I must be missing something here, Pluto. I don’t see where you were ’roundly criticized for being a hateful cynic’. Maybe I missed the initial kerfuffle.
That would be the followup post, rather than the original post.
This looks like PR stunt and completely out of character to me too. I would like to see more of actual critique coming from Muslim communities condemning various violent attacks of Islamic terrorists. Even Pope officially does this on occasion (except for punching the Mom-offenders in the face).
It’s hard to do much more than condemn the Charlie Hebdo shooting for example when the Qu’ran/Hadiths, and every school of Islamic jurisprudence consider blaspheming against the prophet a crime punishable by death under sharia law. You can say it was wrong, but only as a case of vigilantism.
Damn straight! People in foreign lands OWE it to us old white guys to protest when something happens we don’t agree with. If a businessman in Cairo isn’t visibly protesting on my iPhone, he is obviously in league with the terrorists.
And I’m sure we’re only asking for what we would do in their shoes. I’m sure that you, Pluto Animus, have like me taken to the streets 5-10 times in front of CNN cameras in protest of the killing of three muslim studensts. Because if I can’t see you on you tube or a news feed protesting, you must agree with the killer. Amiright or amiright?
[/snark]
Seriously, where do people get off thinking all muslims support terrorists unless they somehow message to your comfortably ensconed western butt that they aren’t?
I resent being called an old white guy. I have a nice tan.
If the Chapel Hill shooter had yelled “allahu atheism”, and “my parking spot is avenged”, and there was an atheist book that said stealing a parking spot was punishable by death. And I wore clothing that made me easily identifiable as an atheist, I can assure you I would be telling everyone I could that I don’t condone such activity, or that killing parking spot thieves was part of the old book of atheism, or whatever other excuse I could come up with. And if I didn’t I can’t really say that I would blame my neighbors for suspecting I might support what he did.
That being said I personally wouldn’t suspect that about my Muslim neighbors, maybe they don’t realize the world is full of bigots, or it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling, like it seems to give some Christians, to be persecuted for their religion.
That’s a moderately valid point.
How about though, all the demonstrations that do happen in front of cameras in support of heinous barbaric acts. I have seen personally, and on tv a kid holding a sign saying “behead those that insult the prophet” The kid was not alone.
So, when the Westboro Baptist Church or KKK gets on TV, people in other countries are justified in deciding that you, as an American, are a gay-hating racist?
We should apply the same standard of evidence to others that you would wish them to apply to you. When someone or some group gets on TV and supports terrorism, I draw the conclusion that that person or that group supports terrorism. Not that all people of the same race, nationality, religion, city of origin, etc… support terrorism.
How many Muslims do you want thrown off towers by other Muslims before you will accept that there is a problem with Islam?
How many people do you want to flee Libya and risk death on boats to Italy before you will refrain from telling Muslims to shut up about it?
What? I’m not telling muslims to shut up about it; I’m pointing out to Pluto that they aren’t silent about it.
Sure there are problems with Islam. I do not assume this means every muslim not actively protesting in front of a camera supports terrorism. That would be an idiotic generalization, on par with assuming that every American who didn’t actively protest Bush’s war in Iraq in front of a camera supported it.
“Sure there are problems with Islam. I do not assume this means every muslim not actively protesting in front of a camera supports terrorism.”
Thanks for the Straw Man, eric. I hope you didn’t pull a muscle while knocking him down.
You assume that Muslims in Pakistan would never consider protesting the attempted murder of Malala as a message to their fellow Muslims either at home or around the world, so it is therefore completely unreasonable to expect them to do it for the benefit of Americans.
By making such an assumption, you are agreeing with me. Implicit in such an assertion is the idea that no terrorist act is sufficient to rouse Muslims in any country to take to the streets and demonstrate against it, either due to moral apathy or genuine fear of Islamic reprisal.
You are apparently unaware that, by designating any expectation of public revulsion on the part of Muslims worldwide as entirely unreasonable, and you thereby bolster my argument that theirs is a morally compromised community.
Thanks.
I’m expecting that the people in Pakistan message to their fellow citizens the same way and same amount that we message to our fellow citizens about groups such as Wesboro, the KKK, or individuals such as Craig Hicks or Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczyinski. Which is to say, 90% of the time your average citizen like you and I and Pakistanis voice our objections in our own social groups – such as our friends and families – but do little else. I have never physically shown up to protest the Wesboro guys. Have you? Nor have I tried to send any sort of international communication that I disagree with them. Have you? Other than complain about racists etc.. on web pages and to your friends, what have you done? My answer, whether I like to admit it or not, is ‘basically nothing.’ If your answer is also basically nothing, which it most likely is, why would you attack anyone else for behaving the exact same way you behave?
IOW, I don’t expect that they are utterly silent on the mater. I just don’t assume that just because *I* can’t see what they’re doing, that they must support terrorism. How narcissistic would that be?
Perhaps we could do a poll and see what percentage of Muslims support the idea of somebody being punished for drawing something?
Or has that idea already occurred to somebody and the results been published?
AFAIK the per capita rate of muslim violent attacks on people in the US and UK for drawing Mohammed is orders of magnitude lower than the survey rate of people who say they support it. For these countries, essentially no more than a handful of reported events per millions of muslim residents. So how are you going to judge your fellow citizens – on what they actually do when the situation arises, or on what they claim they’re going to do when answering a hypothetical survey question? Personally, I prefer to judge on actual behavior.
Is there something preventing you from using both measures to “judge” your fellow citizens?
I find the entirety of their position relevant. Advocating for repugnant behavior while abstaining from physical participation is not something I’m willing to pretend doesn’t exist.
Your observations would hold water, if it were not for the fact that we have, in fact, seen many public demonstrations by Muslims expressing their outrage. But not for the cause of human rights, of course.
When the Charlie Hebdo massacre occurred, what prompted Muslims to publicly protest?
Not the murders, of course, but the publication of a line drawing of a person.
I’m going to repeat that, because you deserve to have that rubbed in your face:
They didn’t protest the murders carried out in the name of their religion, they protested the publication of a drawing that they would never see.
If they had never protested the cartoons, you might have a tiny shred of a point.
But given that they do demonstrate, but only for trivial, selfish reasons, it is clear that their moral priorities are completely screwed up.
It only takes a small amount of honesty and intellectual grit to reach such an obvious conclusion.
I wonder which one you lack.
I should also add that it seems quite absurd of you to claim that “no terrorist act is sufficient to rouse Muslims in any country to take to the streets and demonstrate against it” on a web page covering a story in which Norweigian muslims roused themselves to demonstrate against anti-semitism. True, it did not produce anywhere near the support the boosters claimed they were going to get or the media hyped. Few events do. But 20-30 muslims (or the 200-300 that Diva Ex Machina’s Norweigian translation of the commentators supports, see message above) is a non-zero number. You are complaining about an event type never happening in a thread about that exact event type happening.
Out of 200,000 Muslims in Norway, 20 showed up.
Thanks for making my point for me.
Reminds me of the time when my Mom called, terrified that I’d been caught up in the extensive riots near Amsterdam’s central station. It turned out to be about five people, and of course the cable news framed the shot just so. It made CNN, but didn’t even rate the local news.
It’s the nature of news reporting to make stuff as dramatic as possible.
Nowadays, but not so, or at a minimum, during the time of Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley. No breathless caterwauling. No flashy computer graphics, no bloody “edgy” music. No regard for “infotainment” values.
Regarding the claim about the organizer being anti-Semitic, the Osloby-article does address this:
“One of the initiators was Muhammad Ali Chishti who in 2009 claimed to be a Jew hater.
– Much of what I said at the time was conspiracy theories. I was young and angry because of what happened in Gaza, the 29-year old says.
– What have you learned since then?
– I have reflected. My thinking has been challenged, and I’ve read about the life of Prophet Mohammed. I have learned that Islam is about peace. It is about tolerance. Many things indicate that we are approaching a dangerous polarization between religions in Europe. It is important to show that we are not intolerant, Chishti says.”
If this is true, I consider it to be a very positive development. While there is still room for improvement, moving from hatred toward acceptance of others is a positive step.
I would not be surprised if most Norwegian Moslems were supportive of their multicultural society.
The elected Norway political party is supportive of its immigrants. It paid a huge price for this position. A few years ago, almost its entire youth wing was massacred by a lone narcissistic sociopath with an assault rifle. The nut said he was doing it to restore Christiandom and because he hated Moslems. They have continued their policy.
Also, Moslems have different factions and the hated faction may be behind the killings.
Here’s an article that replies to accusations of fraud/theatre.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/misinformation-mars-oslo-interfaith-peace-ring/
“…although the original intention had been to encircle the synagogue, it became clear that it would be an impossible security operation.”
I still hold that it would also be an impossible geometrical operation.
It says about Ali Chisti, the alleged anti-Semite:
“The organizers (…) thought it a strength he was there and a speaker because Chishti showed that “it is possible to humble yourself publicly and change your mind.” Chishti began his speech Saturday night with an apology.”
sub
sub
I think it’s a little bit paranoid to be hypercritical of a benign event like this. I think I understand where the criticism is coming from, but ultimately I think it’s undermining a balanced and skeptical view of the muslim community.
The event, which gathered a few hundred young moderate muslims, was an outreach to a scared jewish community in Oslo. The numbers indicate some, but not not a huge success. This is by no means unplausible.
Thumbs up to these kids I say.
I’m sorry but I was not hypercritical. I posted it as 1200 Muslims and I wanted to correct that, and also add new information. If you think giving the news is “undermining a balanced and skeptical view of the muslim community,” you’re wrong. Would you have me leave the news uncorrected? And did the organizer really have a history of anti-semitism? Do you think I should leave that out, too, because it’s “undermining”.
Read the Roolz please and do not call the moderator “paranoid”.
Oh, I see how that could be read. Sorry, the “paranoid” part was intended for a couple of the comments here, as Plutos Animus. He spoke of a possible fraud.
I appreciate the skeptical approach to this, and it did make me check around if there were indeed overly biased reporting and propaganda – other than the usual sentimental wishful thinking and pandering the media too often resort to.
Directly malicious and misleading reporting happens all the time, and this one did have a few flags. But my opinion is that this was not one of those times.
It is true that many of the photos of the event were cropped, probably to give it bigger impact. It’s also true that Norwegian media (which got picked up by foreign media) also didn’t discriminate between the people in the street which counted probably 1200-1300, and the muslims “holding hands”, the latter number not reported in Norwegian News outlets. Also probably to give a bigger impact.
But Didrik Søderlind, as you wrote, who is a known journalist and a prominent humanist in Norway, reports that even the most critical sets that number at around 2-300. My experience with him gives me no reason to doubt that guesstimate. I did tweet him to ask if he would write a piece on the event after I read your blogpost.
I would call the event a moderate success. And in this case, my understanding is that the organizers were young muslims, not experienced media pros. It can be sensible of journalists to be supportive of their effort in this benign endevour. There’s critical and there’s Critical if you know what I mean..
My analysis would just stop here. Positive event mildly overblown. But carry on your good work, I have followed Your blog for some time now, good read.
Best regards Eirik
“And did the organizer really have a history of anti-semitism? Do you think I should leave that out, too, because it’s “undermining”.”
Apparently he did. I don’t think it’s undermining, I think it’s entirely relevant to report this.
But now he’s publically retracted those statements, and says he no longer stands for it. Maybe you should have included this in your post.
I honestly don’t know if he’s being honest, but that’s another story for another day.
I did not know that he publicly retracted those statements,so I didn’t put it in my post. Look, do not assume that I knew that and didn’t mention it, okay?
Commentators often make the point about how important it is that moderate Muslims stand up for what they believe, make a show of force, and don’t let the extremists be the only ones we hear from.
I’m saddened to see that when moderate Muslims actually do so, they are hit with conspiracy theories. “The media made it up” and “they are just pretending” are two that appeared pretty much immediately. Clearly there has been some misreporting in the media. Not everyone at the demonstration were Muslims, but many were. In avy event, I do not think the organizers can be blamed for poor media reporting.
Just like we should take jihadists at their word when they say they are killing for their faith, I think it’s fair that we also should take moderate Muslims at their word when they defend the rights of Jews.