Roots of rising Islamophobia in U.S. can be traced to "small, tightly networked group of misinformation experts"
A new report traces the flow -- and funding -- of anti-Muslim ideas
In a 140-page report released Friday, researchers at the Center for American Progress have traced the origins of rising Islamophobia in the United States to what they call a "small, tightly networked group of misinformation experts guiding an effort that reaches millions of Americans through effective advocates, media partners, and grassroots organizing."
The report features profiles of some figures -- blogger and activist Pamela Geller and think tank denizen Frank Gaffney -- who will be familiar to regular Salon readers. It names Gaffney and four others as the leading "misinformation experts" who generate anti-Muslim talking points that spread in the media: Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; David Yerushalmi at the Society of Americans for National Existence (who is also the architect of the anti-Shariah movement); Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch; and Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
The report also reveals that a small group of little-known foundations have in the past decade provided more than $40 million to groups promoting Islamophobia.
I spoke to two of the report's authors, Eli Clifton and Wajahat Ali.
How do you define Islamophobia?
Wajahat Ali: We define it as an exaggerated fear, hatred and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from American social, political and civic life.
For example, the blogger Pamela Geller has written, "Devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service. Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his Army?" And here is another quote from Brigitte Gabriel, founder of one of the major grass-roots Islamophobic groups, Act for America: "[A] practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah, who abides by Islam, who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a day -- this practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America."
We're all for freedom of speech. We're all for people having the right so say what they believe in America. But, at the same time, these individuals have been promoted as legitimate, neutral experts on Islam and Muslims when they're anything but that.
You say in the report that you did not find a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to spread Islamophobia. So what did you find?
Eli Clifton: That's right. It's not a conspiracy; it's not an overwhelming sum of money. And this is not something that runs across the entire conservative spectrum. What we're seeing is a relatively modest amount of money and a relatively small number of people and major donors that make up this echo chamber. It's a good object lesson in how one influences public opinion and media messaging. As one section of the report explores, how do you get a sound bite turned into a truth accepted by the public?
How does that happen?
Ali: There are five major players who we call the central nervous system of the Islamophobia network. They're primarily responsible for creating the talking points and manufacturing the messages and memes that get distributed and mainstreamed via the network. The second aspect of it is the grass-roots organizations and the religious right. Examples include Act for America, Eagle Forum and Stop Islamization of America. They take these talking points -- such as, "Shariah is a legal-political-military doctrine that will supplant the United States Constitution" -- and promote them. Then these ideas -- such as "Obama may be a Muslim," "Shariah is a threat," "mosques are Trojan Horses" -- are mainstreamed through a media megaphone. That's primarily Fox News but also radio shows like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and websites like WorldNetDaily, FrontPageMag and JihadWatch. Finally, we see how these talking points are used by mainstream politicians, as we've seen in the Republican presidential primary this year.
These people are going to say -- have said -- that they are writing about the very real threat of Islamic terrorism and radicalization in the U.S. How do you distinguish what these people are doing from legitimate discussion of Islamic terrorism?
Ali: We spent time in the report documenting the fact that these people are not legitimate scholars or experts on Islam or Shariah. These are individuals who have an extremist ideology that promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda.
What new information are you reporting about of the funding of these groups?
Clifton: We found that seven primary donors gave about $42 million over 10 years to eight groups promoting Islamophobia. For example, the second biggest donor is Richard Scaife and his foundations in Pittsburgh. He contributed nearly $8 million to the network, including to the Center for Security Policy, which is Frank Gaffney' group, and to David Horowitz's Freedom Center. The seven donors are: Donors Capital Fund, Richard Mellon Scaife, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust, the Russell Berrie Foundation, the Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund, and the Fairbrook Foundation.
Are there characteristics that these organizations share?
Clifton: They share a right-wing tilt, but beyond that there is a fair degree of range in terms of where their interests lie. You have to take them on a case-by-case basis to try to figure out where they're coming from. The Russell Berrie Foundation, for example, actually gives to a wide variety of groups, including some fairly progressive organizations such as the New Israel Fund. But then they also turn around and give $250,000 to Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum. It's very hard to figure out in some cases how aware these foundations even are of what they're doing. It's something they should be asked, and something that I hope people reach out to them on. We've reached out to all of them and have not gotten any substantive responses.
Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at jelliott@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More: Justin Elliott
Report: Foundations paid $42 million to spread anti-Muslim propaganda
Read the report here.
- Orangutan.'s blog
- Login to post comments
Think Progress Responds
http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/ending-islamophobia/?post_type=progress-report
Ending Islamophobia
By Faiz Shakir on Aug 29, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Following a six-month long investigative research project, the Center for American Progress released a 130-page report on Friday, which reveals that more than $42 million from seven foundations over the past decade have helped fan the flames of anti-Muslim hate in America. Titled “Fear, Inc.,” the report conclusively finds that there is a small, tightly networked group of right-wing influentials producing misinformation against Muslims that reaches millions of Americans. This interconnected group of propagandists have cultivated several prevalent yet baseless memes, including: President Obama is a secret Muslim, mosques are incubators of radicalization, and Sharia law will soon supplant American law. There are seven foundations who fund this this kind of harmful activity: Donors Capital Fund, Richard Mellon Scaife, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust, the Russell Berrie Foundation, the Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund, and the Fairbrook Foundation. By following the money trail and identifying the key funders behind the hate, the CAP report aims to end Islamophobia. These seven funders could have a powerful impact in marginalizing Islamophobia if they refused to sanction it. The release of the CAP report puts pressure on these donors to publicly express whether they are supportive of the divisive hate that their money is fueling, as it is possible that they have no idea how their dollars are fueling attacks.
HOW THE ISLAMOPHOBIA NETWORK OPERATES: The funders give money to a core group of “scholars” who produce talking points, which activists and media figures then disseminate and politicians help mainstream. Watch this video to understand how it works. Five “experts” form the the intellectual nerve center of the network: 1) the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney (who has said the practice of Sharia is “sedition”); 2) the Society of Americans for National Existence’s David Yerushalmi (who has said the Muslim people “are our enemies”); 3) the Middle East Forum’s Daniel Pipes (who has said Muslim customs “are more troublesome than most”); 4) Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer (who has said “traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful”); and 5) the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Steve Emerson (who has said Islam “sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine”). The work produced by these five individuals is promoted, hyped, and sensationalized by activists like Brigitte Gabriel, Pamela Geller, and David Horowitz. Religious right leaders such as John Hagee and Pat Robertson disseminate the propaganda to their followers. Media figures at Fox News and National Review, as well as hate radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage carry the messages to their large audiences. And politicians like Reps. Allen West (R-FL) and Michele Bachmann (R-MN) give the hate a larger megaphone. It’s this tightly-knit megaphone that turned an uncontroversial construction of an Islamic center in New York City into an ugly national debate over a purported “victory mosque” near Ground Zero.
ISLAMOPHOBIA NETWORK’S RESPONSES SHOW THEIR TRUE COLORS: Pursuant to the publication of CAP’s report last Friday, the Islamophobia network responded as they often do — with anti-Muslim smears and innuendos. David Horowitz called the report “fascistic.” Robert Spencer deemed it the “agenda of the Islamic jihad.” Frank Gaffney labeled the authors of the report (Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matt Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, and myself) as the “Shariah Defense Lobby.” And determined to one-up her colleagues, Pamela Geller called it “a Mein Kampf treatise” and added, “These quislings are the enemy.” Their responses highlight the fact that it is rarely possible to have rational discourse with the Islamophobia network. And more importantly, it raises the question of whether the foundations understand what they are funding and whether they agree with the casual use of hate language.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO NEXT?: There are a number of concrete action steps to be taken. First, members of the Islamophobia network should not be allowed to appear, unchecked, as unbiased “experts” in the media. If you see a member of the Islamophobia network on print, radio, or TV, let the media outlet and us know. Second, if a small group of committed extremists can drive a national debate of hate, then we too can accomplish so much more with our broad-based support from Americans who don’t want to tear our national fabric apart and instead want to preserve our core values of freedom of religion and tolerance and diversity. Please read the report, disseminate it to your friends, and help us change the debate.