Mosque attack linked to "Obsession" DVD
On the 26th of February, a 10-year-old girl was sprayed with a chemical irritant while attending evening prayers with her family in a Dayton. Ohio mosque. According to the police report, the girl saw two men standing outside a basement window, upon which one of them sprayed her with still-unknown chemical. The girl immediately felt nauseous and other occupants of the room (which housed children until their parents completed prayers) suffered from tearing, coughing and shortness of breath. The mosque was evacuated, a few worshipers were hospitalized and the attack will undoubtedly have long-term effects on the community.
The police holds that there is still no evidence of the attack being a hate crime, but some have linked the incident to the mass-distribution of copies of Obsession: Radical Islam’s war Against the West in swing states earlier this month. Obsession is just another addition to the string of propaganda pieces that paint Muslims as devils and compares Islam with Nazism. Although many organizations have promoted the distribution of the DVD in the 2 years since its release, the current campaign (in which a reported 28 million copies were sent out) was funded by the Clarion Fund, a shadowy New York based organization.
It should be noted that four days before the attack, copies of “Obsession” were distributed with the Dayton Daily News.
Even if we are to assume that the two events aren’t linked, how can it be expected to widely distribute such a vitrolic “documentary” without inciting others to violence? Sure, the filmmakers include disclaimers stating that most Muslims are not extremists, but between the footage comparing Islam to Nazism and constant repeating that radicals won’t rest until they kill/convert all non-Muslims, that message is surely drowned.
The Clarion Fund justifies its action by claiming it’s meant to educate the public on the threat of Islamic terrorism, but there are surely other – more appropriate – methods of achieving that. The argument of freedom of speech would certainly be raised, but at a time when anti-Muslim sentiment abounds and Muslims struggle to make their condemnation of terrorism heard, wouldn’t coordinating efforts with Muslim leaders have been the right way to go? And if the intention was to educate the public, why were only a few states targeted?
You don’t have to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier to see in it nothing more than a masked political effort, in which Muslims are scapegoated. Yes, in every generation, a group will have to bear the brunt of hatred and discrimination (sadly, some groups have had to endure that for centuries), in most cases the discrimination is now shunned by the mainstream. With Muslims, it remains widely justified and accepted as ‘valid’ criticism
I do not deny that terrorism in all its forms needs to be addressed, but one-sided, offensive tactics are not a step in the right direction.
Join the Conversation
This is seriously disturbing, and I am absolutely outraged that there seems to be no real uproar concerning this horrific case. I can’t imagine the current threat that Muslims in the USA, including Americans, must face right now, on top of the verbal abuse that they have to suffer through on a daily basis. If this was an attack by Muslims on a Church or a Synagogue we’d never hear the end of it, but it was on a mosque, so the mainstream doesn’t seem to think it’s a big deal.
Equality? Human rights? Religious freedom? Please.
America is better than this. Whoever committed this crime must be punished this act of terror. The U.S government loves to talk about “terrorism,” but it has to realize that it also holds the responsibility to protect Muslims in the USA against terrorism and abuse.
My thoughts and prayers are with the family of those innocent Muslims who were harmed.
hmm this is the kinda bleep tht gets teh blood boilin of Muslims all over the world. Its bloody shameful that they attacked a place of worship, a place which is supposed to b Sacred from these kinda acts of hatred. All Religions preach peace n attackin innocent civi’s… its just insane
and look at how the media is supressin it
2 years?? u kiddin me? If these were made my Muslims.. they would’ve been arrested, held w/out a lawyer n then prosecuted in some hidden courtroom… all b4 the DVD’s were even released !
My prayers to all the muslims suffering thru this incident n thru the inability n the incompetence of the US Govt tryin to solve cases like these
The authorities said there is NO EVIDENCE of a crime let alone a hate crime.
Just as I said in the post, even if there is no link between the two incidents, it’s safe to assume that the mass-distribution of Obsession – a move that is obviously meant to rouse emotions – would lead to attacks against innocent Muslims.
Are you simply denying that this even took place?
It is FOX News and its ilk (who are known to spew hateful Islamophobic material, and have always been defenders of campaigns against Islam) who are claiming that there is no “evidence,” while not acknolwding the fact that it did happen (clearly spinning the case as a lie.)
Meanwhile..
Video generates fear, hate, not information about Islam
A cruel display of anti-Muslim hate in Ohio
Can of pepper spray found near mosque
Muslim Children Gassed at Dayton Mosque After “Obsession” DVD Hits Ohio
Ramadan chemical attack on Ohio mosque
As the original post noted, the distribution of this video is an expression of freedom of speech, and I do not believe in any way that the distribution of this video should have been legally restricted. Now, does that mean I would be handing out this video? Certainly not. There is a level of respect and decorum that is certainly absent in a video like this. The men who released such a chemical on innocent children should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Muneeb, you say that it is these types of incidents that get the blood boiling of Muslims all over the world. Are you implying that when provoked, it is someone’s ‘right’ to defend in violence? Please – that is no better than the idiots who watched this video and decided it was an appropriate reaction to gas some little girls. You also say that houses of religious worship are supposed to be immune from this – while I agree, there are plenty of Christian or Jewish sanctuaries that are similarly violated daily in Muslim countries (which many authors and commentors on this site have denounced repeatedly). I also would like to note that in many of those countries, crimes like this would go unpunished.
Kawthar, I disagree that a distribution of videos like this automatically leads to an increase of violence against Muslims. That argument is an argument against freedom of speech, and it assumes that people do not have a capacity to alter their behavior even when shown provocative material.
Reading this post reminded me of a debate that is currently going on at the UN. Countries such as Egypt, who clearly has a perfect record of human rights, have been pushing through the OIC and UN Human Rights Council to pass a resolution that will condemn anti-Islamic sentiments. While the resolution text is vague, it only applies to Islam, not any other religion and is (in the eyes of many countries) a clear violation of freedom of speech. When Egypt’s foreign minister spoke at the UN to encourage this resolution he said it was “drafted with the utmost respect for principles of freedom of speech.” It seems obvious to me that there is a clear misunderstanding between the Middle East and the West about what actually constitutes freedom of speech.
False: They never said a crime wasn’t committed, what they said was that there was no evidence to suggest that it was a hate crime.
Now as for why obsession was only sent to certain states and not others, well ohio is a swing state not to mention the amount of money it would take to produce all those copies for the entire nation.
I wouldn’t say this was an attack on the mosque itself but more of an attack on the girl/worshippers.
Muslims don’t face as large of a threat in the USA as you think ESRA.
Jessica,
I do not think that distributing propagandist, demonizing videos would automatically lead to acts of violence. But in some contexts it definitely would. I’m a member of the Muslim Network for Baha’i Rights, and I’ve noticed that every time a cleric delivers a lecture infused with hatred, or a misleading article is published, there is an increase in incidents of abuse.
Another example: a preacher recently went on Pakistani TV and denounced the Ahmadiyya group as infidels. Within a day, 2 were murdered.
These are just 2 examples off the top of my head, and more cases can quickly be brought up.
One thing they’d all have in common is that the mistrust and hatred already exists and are blown once triggered.
I don’t believe that Islam should be shielded from criticism – just like any other religion/doctrine/etc, it’s fair game.
I would never call for censorship…what I do call for is better judgement. The millions of dollars spent in the mass distribution of the dvd could have surely been put to better use.
Agreed, Kawthar. Thanks for elaborating.
Well to give you credit they face a larger threat here in the Muslim world (for things not linked to Islam.) But I didn’t say they face a huge threat really, just that this incident, if indeed solidly linked to the DVD that has been distributed by the millions, is certainly “threatening” – and it is.
Well let’s try this, there was no crime and if anyone would put your emotions aside and think as you read the article concerning the mosque (which is 4 blocks from my house) you might see they pretty much hint at that from the start.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/07/ddn100708mosquefolo.html
More concerning is the most frequently quoted description of the event was posted on the Daily Kos by Chris Rodda who when interviewed by the Dayton Daily News said: “Rodda said she “sensationalized” the headline on her blog to draw attention.
“I was mad, so I sort of shot from the hip,” Rodda said, adding she has not talked to any law enforcement agencies, hospital officials or Islamic Center president Dr. Tarek Sabagh. She said her information came from people who know some people that attend the mosque.”
http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/03/ddn100308mosque.html
In other words, SHE MADE IT UP! She didn’t shoot from the hip, she shot herself in the foot. And now a whole bunch of other people are repeating it and looking stupid in the process. Our neighborhood meeting is tonight and we are hoping to have the Dayton PD officers there give us more information.
I am amazed how many people are spreading hate accusing others of spreading hate.
Your entire comment was fine until it got to this part and I was immediately turned off with the choice of words:
Really? Being concerned about the possibility of this crime (if it is indeed evidenced) is a way of “spreading hate”? When the author wrote the article, no one was under the impression that anyone had made anything up. You see something in the news, half of the time it’s true, the other half it’s not – expressing yourself about even the possibility is always justified until proven wrong. No one here said that it happened without a shadow of a doubt, people simply expressed their outrage. You were so offended by that, it seems, that you would resort to calling it hateful and then tell US to put our emotions aside. Funny.
Much of this article, contrary to what you’re implying, was not fabricated. You accuse us of spreading hate yet you obviously have no problem with people spreading around the “Obsession” video (and other equally Islamophobic productions) in a hateful campaign that shows absolutely no tolerance and respect for Muslims in the USA (or in general.) I wonder how you would feel if people were spreading disgustingly inaccurate DVDs to paint your religion as an evil cult. You’d be outraged. Allow us to feel outraged and try to respect our need to express this outrage instead of falsely accusing us of “hate.” Correcting facts is one thing, and we appreciate that. But concluding such remarks by accusing us of hate is just plain weak.
The increasingly active and well-funded Islamophobic campaigns in the USA, these are not just “amazing” to me in their hatefulness, it’s simply disrespectful and disturbing, not to mention incredibly dangerous. Otherwise no one would be reacting as they did, it certainly doesn’t surprise us that such widespread propaganda would eventually lead to such actions. I and many others are ready to criticize this pathetic idiocy at each and every opportunity and we did so here.
As for the falseness of this situation, we are willing to listen to different sides of the story, but thus far no one has provided absolute facts, and therefore coming to a conclusion is difficult. Either way, this is a blog, not an official news source. We read about this story in many different sources and we simply reacted, that’s not a crime, nor is it hateful. We’d appreciate it if you stop accusing us of such things simply because you didn’t “put your emotions aside.”
The main point behind my post was not to state “there is a link!” because I agree that at this point there still is insufficient evidence. In fact, Tarek Sabagh himself had dismissed such claims.
My point was to state that mass distribution of propagandist material cannot be justified – especially from a supposed charity – and that it goes in contrary with its supposed intentions.
You cannot make light of such productions and the power they have over impressionable individuals.
I sure hope that this was not any kind of attack but if it a hoax then let’s not forget that this isn’t the first time something like this has happened before.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/08/kafirphobia_americans_as_viole.html
And also that silly articles have emanated from other Ohio mosques in the past too and have gotten their due consideration. . . . .
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003070.php
Well it appears denny in dayton that with your first link its been basically proven that this wasn’t a hate crime at all and that it was an assault between two ten year olds.
Well Esra I hope that makes you feel better to know that this is basically been proven not to be a hate crime at all, just a 10 year old boy being an idiot towards one of his fellow muslims in a mosque.
I wonder if you actually read the article? Nowhere did I see any “proof.”
You are referring to this part of the article, which clearly states that they have no PROOF that it’s a hate crime, not that it’s PROVEN that this is not a hate crime. The difference is huge, read it again:
Therefore you’re wrong.
You said the word “proven” twice without backing it up with anything. Furthermore, you immediately claim that a 10 year old boy did this. Um, I assume you twisted this part of the article to make it seem that way:
Wow, a 10 year old boy appeared in an interview! That is total “proof” of the fact that he did it and that he was just messing about with a girl his age. Thanks for clearing that up!
Stick to facts, stop recycling personal opinions. No one has provided proof and unless we have it no one can claim otherwise without the actual facts instead of twisting an article full of suspicion, and, I repeat, no factual information and claiming that it is the truth. Make a better effort to understand the situation at hand. We are all trying to, no reason why you shouldn’t either.
Look I understand what your saying when it comes to proof and proven in that there is no proof now but that there could be proof later, but the way the investigation is going I doubt there going to find any evidence to suggest this ia a hate crime.
None of that means anything to me. Come back when you’ve got evidence.
Actually, it is you who needs to come back with the evidence. Not the other way around.
Much to your dismay Ansar, that’s not the case. I thought that simple logic would already suggest that.
Claiming that only one argument needs evidence (ironically the same argument that reeks of unconditional denial despite clearly lacking a hint of “proof”) is practically admitting your hypocracy, something I never doubted considering your first comment here. So thanks for letting us know that you too insist on recycling your incredibly biased opinions and republishing them as “fact” without providing a hint of evidence.
I never claimed that my argument was the truth, however you and Noliving have no issue pretending that you hold nothing but the “proof” and evidence – yet I see none of this. So again, no. Try to be a bit more logical and think again about who requires evidence here. Clearly that’s not me, because unlike you, I’m not the one making baseless and tiring claims while shamelessly insisting that it’s factual. I said I would reconsider my argument but only if I was provided with the proof, something neither you nor Noliving nor anyone else is willing to provide, probably because you too lack it. If you actually read my previous comments here, you would’ve already gathered that much, but apparently you’re not interested to hear anything but the echoes of your own opinions that have yet to be backed factually.
Therefore the best thing for me is to say again what I already requested from Noliving (and something I’ve actually yet to receive):
Ansar: Come back when you’ve got evidence.
No evidence, no refutation.
Cara from The Curvature offers some insight:
There’s more of this outrage here:
Clearly this is not evidence, but I am posting this here because it correctly exposes the mentality behind those denying it while refusing to provide the required evidence that would make us even remotely consider their argument.
Just came across this interesting website – ObsessionWithHate.com
Excellent. Hatred exposed. This is certainly a hopeful development.
More about this here.
Thanks for bringing it up Kawthar.
Especially the distribution of this DVD by so many newspapers is disturbing. Good in-depth analysis at http://www.theamericanmuslim.org
Clarion, the same organization who released and distributed “Obsession” will soon release a third film – “narrated by M. Zuhdi Jasser, who is president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He describes himself as a devoted, peace-loving Muslim.”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/14/muslim.dvd/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
This story has been debunked. It’s a hoax. Some kids were playing with pepper spray and ended up causing an accident. Too bad they had to accuse black Americans of committing the so-called “crime” of bigotry. It’s somehow pathetic to be complaining about other people spreading fear and hate when you do it yourself.
Frenchie,
No one here banged fists, and incident that the incident was a hate crime, or that it was motivated by the distribution of the Obsession DVD.
As was repeatedly stated, what we are decrying is the massive distribution of a misleading, inciting DVD. Just as I feel outraged at the propagandist publications produced within the Middle East that vilify Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Shi’ites, Zoroastrians, etc., the Clarion Fund’s action outrages me.
Kawthar,
The only thing that I found misleading about the the movie Obsession was that the filmmakers did not arrive at the awful truth about how much backing jihadis have from the central texts of Islam. In fact, they have way more backing from Islamic writings than any “moderate” Muslim who basically come and go and have never had much impact in their efforts to make Islam less violent. Now that’s something to bang fists about.
Your claim has been refuted already in a thread that you seemingly didn’t bother to read, and in a post whose content you managed to ignore. 90% of the post was indeed about the Obsession DVD itself and not solely this incident. Thanks for completely missing the point of this post and resorting to a tedious claim that seethes of irony.
Well of course the post was about obsession dvd but as stated in the title of the post was about a hate crime being committed because of the distribution of the dvd. the main point of the post is that the mosque was attacked because of the distribution of the Obsession DVD which would then make this a hate crime. However though the only thing that links the two together is the dates of which the attack occured and when the dvd was distributed. The author feels that there is no chance that the timing is coincidental(doesn’t say that word for word but you can get that idea from the first sentence of the second paragraph) so that then reinforces the point that this post is really about the incident but there is still yet to be evidence to come forward that this attack was even motivated by this dvd.
Basically is this, the first half of the post is about mosque being attacked because of the dvd. The second half is that even if the mosque was attacked and it had nothing to do with the dvd(author of the post doesn’t believe this) they believe it still would increase violence againt muslims in general and that it is meant to influence the elections. The only good news is that it seems that there hasn’t been an increase in violence against muslims since the distribution of this dvd.
I was wondering how many people have seen the new Al Jazeera program, “Islam in America”
Not at all, and nowhere within the post or in the comments will you find me endorsing the opinion that they’re definitely linked. I withstood from linking to the Daily Kos article because I could see it was inflammatory and because the Dayton Muslim community themselves refrained from making the connection. The highlight in the second paragraph is “some have linked”, which was meant to distance myself from the opinion.
The first half of the post was meant to provide background information on the attack against the mosque and the Obsession DVD. It was an introduction to the paragraphs that would follow, and the conclusion of the post highlighted my intention behind writing it:
And I still hold on to the belief that the massive distribution of propagandist material that singles out a group or community is wrong. The fact that such material can lead to violence cannot be denied (read my comment above to Jessica).
Speedstick,
Um, did you even read the post? It would help if you did, before providing an entirely inaccurate summary full of baseless assumptions. This part of the post alone:
Makes your comment practically useless. This sentence is what emphasized the focus on the DVD and not on the incident in question.
People, read this post before jumping to shallow conclusions and falling into the very trap that you are accusing others of.
Here Kawthar did you read the part in parathenses about how I got the belief that you don’t believe it is too coincindental? I acknowledge that you didn’t say they were coincidental but you hint, and I specifically say what the hint is in the parathensis, at your feelings about the mosque attack whether or not the dvd played a role in that attack.
So what is the hint: “Even if we are to assume that the two events aren’t linked, how can it be expected to widely distribute such a vitrolic “documentary” without inciting others to violence?”
For example if I go to you and I say “Even if the war in Iraq is about wmd” what did I just say? I just said that I don’t believe the war in Iraq is about wmd but about something else. I didn’t say that word for word but its what I meant.
What your saying in your hint is that you believe that the mosque attack is linked to the dvd. Because you believe the mosque attack is linked to the dvd, its not what you said but you what you meant, which means there is no coincidence hence the quote “The author feels that there is no chance that the timing is coincidental”
You have to remember the main point of an article is always found in the introductory paragraph through either a thesis sentence or a topic sentence. The problem is that the background information of a mosque attack is being used as the introductory paragraph and there is no mention of a dvd. As a result for me atleast the only conclusion I can make is that the mosque attack is the main point and that when you mention dvd you are using it as a supporting point for why the mosque was attack.
If you wish to make the dvd/hatefilled type media as the main point and use the attack as a supporting point you would be better off starting off with a paragraph talking about your personal experience with the distribution of hateful media and seeing attacks rise against specefic communities and then I would use this sentence with maybe a change here and there to use as your topic sentence “Obsession is just another addition to the string of propaganda pieces that paint Muslims as devils and compares Islam with Nazism.” after using that sentence with maybe a change here and there everyone would know that the main point is media that is hatefilled increase violence and that Islam is latest victim and is being used as a scapegoat and then in the first supporting paragraph go into the background information about this mosque being attack and that this dvd was only distributed just before the attack and that before(this part is me making something up to give you an idea) the dvd was distributed violence against muslims was low.
Esra do you see now how I came to the sentence: “Basically is this, the first half of the post is about mosque being attacked because of the dvd.” Because based upon my interpretation of the “Even if we are to assume that the two events aren’t linked, how can it be expected to widely distribute such a vitrolic “documentary” without inciting others to violence?” is him basically stating that he believe thats the mosque was attacked because of the dvd. Which is what what the first half is about the mosque attack and why it was attack. Your right that the sentence quoted emphasizes the dvd but it is not the topic of the sentence. The topic of the sentence is still the mosque attack. The topic of the article is what the author believes, not what the author doesn’t believe. What does the author believe? The mosque was attacked and that a anti islam dvd recently distributed is linked/behind/responsible/ motivated that attack. Look at the title, what is the main point of title? A mosque being attacked, the main point isn’t about a dvd, but the dvd is being empahsized in the title but it isn’t the main point.
That is why if you look at the vast majority of the comments Esra you will see the commentators treating the mosque attack as the main point of the article in their posts and whether or not it is a hate crime and not dvd as the main point.
That is where the mix up is, what the author meant to do was use dvd as the main point and the mosque attack as the supporting point, unfortunately the mosque attack is being used as the main point and the dvd is being used as a supporting point. You may have a different view of what the main point is but to me and what seems to be the vast majority of commentators the main point is the mosque attack and that it was motivated by hate and the supporting point being used to prove that the mosque was attack because of hate is the dvd.
An implication is not a fact and should not be treated as such.
Sorry to disagree once again, but you are mistaken here, the comments developed into making the DVD the central point of the article and of the eventual discussion that took place once people began questioning whether or not it’s a hoax.
You seem to misunderstand the point that the author is trying to make, insisting that it has a different theme than its original intention. You can read the author’s clarifications in this very specific comment:
I believe this comment puts it very simply and specifically. I have no idea why you are insisting otherwise.
Your right an implication is not a fact, my point is what the author believes, I could be wrong in what the author believes. I believe that the author believes that the two are linked, even though as he put it there is no stated link, he gives away his thoughts about if they are linked in my opinion in this sentence:
““Even if we are to assume that the two events aren’t linked, how can it be expected to widely distribute such a vitrolic “documentary” without inciting others to violence?””
The author right there is telling me, not stated mind you, but through interpretation of the meaning behind the words that he does believe they are linked.
If I go to you and I say “Even if the war in Iraq is about WMD”, what did I just say to you? That I don’t believe the war in iraq is about wmd. I didn’t state it but its telling you what I believe.
It isn’t about whether or not he stated it, it’s about the real meaning behind the words. If I go to somone and I tell them to shut up and I’m smiling and laughing, whats the meaning? The meaning is I’m kidding, but I go to someone and I tell them to shut up and I’m angry, the meaning is just that to shut up.
I understand that Esra that I seem to misunderstand the the point the author meant to make. I’m trying to explain in that long post how I got the different meaning or point then what the author intended. Do you get now where I’m coming from in that post and in this post?
Yes it does put it very simply but where is that comment in the orignal post? No where. I’m not insisting otherwise I’m stating how I got my view, it maybe be seen as insisting but I’m pointing out how I got my interpretation/view of the author point. It may not have been what the author intended but its how I view his post.
For example in this comment the author made: “even if there is no link between the two incidents, it’s safe to assume that the mass-distribution of Obsession – a move that is obviously meant to rouse emotions – would lead to attacks against innocent Muslims.”
Right there its safe for me to assume that the author believes the two incidents are linked even though he doesn’t state it.