By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
October 19, 2001
During World War II there was no television. In the four years of the war, our moving pictures of the War were available only on a weekly basis at the movie theater. While this admission, I know, dates me and probably amazes the younger generation, I am beginning to think that there was a lot to say for it. We could hear war news during scheduled intervals on radio. In between broadcasts we could think about it and assimilate its meaning.
Today, that's not how it works. Besides the three TV networks, there are a number of 24 hour a day cable TV news channels - CNN, MSNBC, All News, Fox News, C-Span 1 and C-Span 2, and probably several more. . The need to talk 24 hours a day about whatever is happening, and do it in such a way that people watch your channel instead of the competition, is obviously a challenge.
What we are seeing, as a result, is a huge amount of erroneous information broadcast. For example, there was a report that anthrax that was found in Tom Daschle's office was "military grade." Then we heard there was an early morning conference among House and Senate congressional leaders and a decision was made to adjourn to allow a "complete sweep" of all Congressional offices between now and Monday to make sure that there was now lurking anthrax in the offices or ventilation system that could harm the more than 20,000 employees who work in the buildings.
Next we heard that the Senate, where anthrax was found, was going to, bravely, remain open. This prompted the New York Post to publish a picture of House leaders on their front page underscored with a huge WIMPS heading and a story which castigated "Frightened members of the House of Representatives" for having "headed for the hills yesterday at the first sign of anthrax in the Capitol - drawing jeers from senators, public health officials and New Yorkers. The Senate, where anthrax actually hit and at least 34 people were exposed, sent a message to a worried nation by defiantly staying open for business, insisting it was safe."
Actually, the truth was that neither the members of the House nor of the Senate were in their offices yesterday. The 435 members of the house, and their staffs, were gone. The Senate decided to continue floor debates and committee meetings, but their offices, where anthrax could have come in by mail, were just as closed as the House offices.
If both were closed, why were the Senators brave and the House Wimps? This was an outrageous slander against members of the House CREATED by the media. In a day of near total confusion, hatched and fed by misinformation and downright meanness by the media, Dan Rather, whose office has experienced an anthrax attack, told Larry King how "brave" his staff was and how "maximum skepticism toward government" was necessary in proper reporting.
During the entire interview Rather repeated his "maximum skepticism toward government" phrase as required of good reporting at least three times. Not once did he mention the importance of reporting what was true as a hallmark of good reporting. In effect, what we were watching yesterday was a case of "maximum skepticism towards government," in this case the House of Representatives. The facts were ignored in the New York Post article, but the maximum skepticism towards government came through loud and clear. In fact, even story of the explosions and the collapse of the World Trade Center, which we were all watching take place before our eyes, was liberally sprinkled with misinformation. It finally got so bad that Mayor Guilani asked the media to take more care because their stories were hurtful to the families of those lying under the heap of debris that was once the Trade Center.
I am receiving a large amount of e-mail with really outrageous stories. Some tell me that the Jews are the ones who destroyed the Trade Center. Then there is the e-mail from those who condemn Oprah Winfrey for her effort to inform her listeners about Islam. In a vicious article in Front Page Magazine, Jamie Glazov states: "In the Qur'an, Surah 2:28 tells us that men are superior to women. Surah 4:34 commands a man to beat his wife as soon as she shows any sign of disobedience to his orders. The verse reads, "As for these women, fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart and scourge them."
That's not exactly what those verses say. I have a Quran in my library in both English and Arabic which says: in Sura 2:28: "How can ye reject the faith in Allah?" (the Arabic word which means "God") Seeing that ye were without life, and He gave you life; Then will He cause you to die, and will again bring you to life; and again to Him will ye return." Surah 4:34 says: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, Because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore, the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence What Allah would have them guard."
The footnote explanation of that a good wife protects the husband's interests in his absence as God (Allah) has protected them. The rest of the Sura is a practical guide to husbands of how to handle "disloyalty and ill-conduct" in their wife. "Admonish them first. Next refuse to share their beds and (last) beat them (lightly) but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means of annoyance (i.e. nagging)."
The footnote in the Quran explains that, in case of family problems, there are four steps to try to correct it. First is verbal advice. If that doesn't work, suspend sexual relations. If that doesn't work, some slight physical correction may be administered. Only, "Iman Shafi'I considers this inadvisable." The 4th step is a family council with representatives from his family and her family.
This is a far cry from a "command" for a "man to beat his wife as soon as she shows any sign of disobedience to his orders." In fact, if Glazov actually read the Quran and thinks those words give a man the right to beat his wife, it is because that is what he wants to believe. It's not what the Quran says.
In fact, it is not radically different than what the Apostle Paul told the Ephesians (5:22-23) "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body."
Of course, Muslims have some of the same problems with their Scriptures that Christians do. They interpret them dozens of different ways and there are men who interpret Ephesians as giving them the right to control their wives, with physical force if necessary.
While I didn't see Oprah's show on Islam, Glazov reported that:
"One of the guests, Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., explained that, "There is nothing in Islam that does not accord women equal rights and respect. Islam encourages women to participate and be a productive member of society."
"Another guest, Professor Akbar Ahmed, who served as the Pakistani Ambassador to Great Britain and is now the Chair of Islamic Studies at American University in Washington D.C., stated that there was a "commonality" between Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the emphasis on family life."
These mild statements, Glaznov said, "traumatized" him. Well, that's too bad. However, there IS a commonality between Islam, Christianity and Judaism. This should not be a great surprise to anyone in any of the three groups. All three claim to worship the same God worshiped by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Old Testament, the Torah and the Quran. All three claim to believe in the principles of the Ten Commandments presented by Moses.
Unfortunately, over the centuries, the commonality Professor Ahmed spoke of has been misplaced by uninspired and self-serving interpretations of the three sets of Scriptures. Instead of respecting one another, what we now have, on all sides it appears, is hate and deliberate misinterpretation.
Many citizens in nominally Christian nations these days are condemning ALL Muslims because they are not vigorously condemning Osama bin Laden and his terrorism wrapped in religion. Yet, as Timothy McVeigh and terrorism in Ireland attest, terrorism is not confined to Muslims.
President Bush is right in calling the present war a battle between good and evil. If that is true, there will be Christians, Jews and Muslims on both sides of the war, a phenomenon which is going to make reporting on it really confusing since we have many in the media who don't even try to find out what is true or good. They believe a good story HAS to find conflict - even when it doesn't exist.
To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com