CNN's O'Brien Slants Towards Muslims, Omits Woman's Connection to Mosque
CNN's Soledad O'Brien's Sunday documentary about the controversial mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee predictably leaned towards the local Muslims who want it built. O'Brien brushed aside an opponent's concerns over Sharia law in the U.S.: "In New York City, we have a big Muslim community. There is no Sharia law [there]." She also omitted how a featured Muslim woman is related to one of the mosque's planners (audio available here).
Forty-five minutes into her hour-long documentary, which aired at 8 pm Eastern, the journalist noted the fall 2010 trial which asked for an injunction to halt the construction of the mosque, but instead of reporting that the trial focused on concerns that the approval of the mosque "did not provide adequate public comment and that its members will impose Sharia Law on Murfreesboro residents," as a local newspaper reported, O'Brien spun this by playing up how, apparently, "in a small courtroom in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Islam was on trial." She then explained that "opponents claim the facility would increase traffic, damage water quality, and provide a foothold for radical Muslims and Islamic law."
[Video embedded below the page break]
The CNN host continued by introducing Lema Sbenaty (pictured at right, with her sister Dima and O'Brien), "a Muslim born and raised in Murfreesboro, [who] attended the hearing." Earlier in the program, O'Brien labeled Sbenaty a "mosque supporter" and a "member of the Muslim community." She also noted that Ms. Sbenaty's father, Saleh Sbenaty, "has lived in Murfreesboro for 20 years. It's where he and his wife Fatun raised their two daughters, Lema and Dima, and their son Salim."
Though the journalist hinted at Mr. Sbenaty's involvement in the mosque project when she asked him, "When you first walked the land [where the mosque will be located], describe that feeling for me," she never explicitly mentioned that he is a member of its planning committee. Thus, O'Brien follows in the footsteps of CBS's Seth Doane, who also omitted this detail when he interviewed the entire family on the March 10, 2011 Evening News. As you might expect, she tossed a softball question at Saleh Sbenaty:
O'BRIEN (on-camera): When the opposition talks about Sharia law, they talk about it coming here to America-
LEMA SBENATY: Yes.
O'BRIEN: Oppressing women, torture, beating- do they have it wrong?
SBENATY: Yes, they do. A lot of things that are culture have been mistaken for religion. The Koran that I have read has never said torture was okay for anyone or beating women, you know, it was okay. None of this is okay.
O'Brien reenforced this understanding of Sharia law in her following two sound bites, one coming from Mr. Sbenaty himself, and the other from Noah Feldman of Harvard University:
SALEH SBENATY: What Sharia is, is a way of life. You know, I am mandated, as a Muslim, to pray five times, I am mandated to fast during the month of Ramadan, and I'm mandated, if I am able to, to go and to pilgrimage. That's Sharia law for me.
NOAH FELDMAN, HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW (on-camera): Sharia, according to Muslims, is God's word on how you're supposed to live your life-
O'BRIEN (voice-over): Noah Feldman is a professor of International Law at Harvard. He's written several books on Islam and Sharia law.
FELDMAN: If you look across the Muslim world, you can see a lot of difference in how customs and practices operate among people, all of whom believe that they are following the Sharia.
FELDMAN (voice-over) As a general matter, the Sharia is what you make of it, and there are plenty of Muslims who interpret the Sharia in a progressive way, so that it's equal towards women and progressive towards women.
Later, the CNN host aired a clip from an interview of "prominent Murfreesboro resident Sally Wall," who was involved in the lawsuit against the planned mosque. O'Brien did her best to cast doubt on her concerns:
O'BRIEN (voice-over): During our conversation, she [Wall] showed me a photo of a woman punished under Taliban rule.
O'BRIEN (on-camera): And this is the cover of Time magazine-
SALLY WALL: Exactly, exactly-
O'BRIEN: Horribly disfigured.
WALL: Right, and she didn't have any ears either.
O'BRIEN: You're realistically worried that this could happen here?
WALL: Oh, certainly, I am. It happened to her.
O'BRIEN: In Afghanistan.
WALL: I understand.
O'BRIEN: There are large Muslim populations in the United States already.
WALL: I know that.
O'BRIEN: I mean, in New York City, we have a big Muslim community.
WALL: I know that.
O'BRIEN: There is no Sharia law in New York City.
WALL: It is creeping in, though, I believe, and I think it will creep in as there are more Muslims coming here, because that's what they're taught. I think they should try to come into the 21st century.
O'BRIEN: Meaning, do what?
WALL: To assimilate-
WALL (voice-over): If you would quit covering, you would find this a much easier place to live.
O'Brien immediately followed her excerpt from the interview with Ms. Wall with a clip from the wife of the imam of the local Muslim community, who touted the apparent benign nature of Sharia law: "Obviously, I'm not oppressed. I'm married to the imam in the mosque. If anyone was going to inflict Sharia law or whatever, obviously, it would be my husband."
The journalist later played one more clip from Professor Feldman, who also cast doubt on the threat from Sharia law, and then tossed slanted questions towards Joe Brandon, the lawyer for those who filed suit against the mosque project:
O'BRIEN: Should Americans be worried about Sharia law?
FELDMAN: Our Constitution prohibits explicitly any religious system becoming the established law of our country. So, such a thing would be completely unimaginable in our country, and rightly so.
JOE BRANDON (from trial): Is Sharia a religion?
O'BRIEN (voice-over): During the nine-day hearing to stop the building of the mosque-
WILL JORDAN, RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TENNESSEE COMMISSIONER: There are people out there that have all kind of beliefs.
O'BRIEN: Twenty-three witnesses were called to testify. Not one was a member of the Murfreesboro mosque.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE WITNESS 1: I do.
BRANDON: If they practiced Sharia law, would it still be your opinion that this is a religion?
JORDAN: I don't know.
O'BRIEN: In October 2010, in the middle of the hearing, attorneys from the federal Department of Justice took the uncommon step of delivering a message to the judge in the case, a reminder that according to the U.S. government, Islam is plainly a religion.
BRANDON: We want to be allowed to ask questions. My position is how do you believe anything if you don't question it, and the issue of whether Islam is a religion has never been decided.
O'BRIEN (on-camera): I thought Islam was considered to be one of the three great religions, right?
BRANDON (on-camera, from interview): Can you tell me what you base that on?
O'BRIEN: Scholars have said that. People who study it have said that.
BRANDON: Well, you can find an expert to testify hell's an ice house, too.
Should we be surprised by Soledad O'Brien's bias when CNN itself has regularly harped on the supposed rise of Islamophobia in the United States?
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Sharia is already here, darling.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 6:12pm.
Most recently in Floridastan.
I notice Soledad also didn't mention this CNN poll from a few days ago.
The MSM is tearing up Herman
Submitted by ricklail on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 6:31pm.
The MSM is tearing up Herman Cain because he said he would not appoint Muslims in his administration. They don't bother to give his explanation. He says he will have no one in his administration that would promote Sharia law.
You Know Where You Stand With Cain
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:02pm.
Cain just kicked a sacred Leftist hive - diversity. The pinko jackets and bumble-obama's will be swarming.
If not having anyone who will promote Sharia Law, then there will be no Liberals in his administration or judicial nominees. Not sure how he would do a purity test since who would have thought judges like the one in Florida would allow Sharia in arbitration would occur.
He's becoming more impressive
Submitted by Martin2717 on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:36pm.
He's becoming more impressive by the day! I hope he's the GOP presidental nominee, he would smack Obama around like it's nothing.
Soledad Should Be Concerned About U.S. Law
Submitted by Boil It Down on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:27pm.
O'brien is so terribly concerned about Muslims, yet the sovereignty of U.S. law is at stake here. I'd have to watch the entire interview, but what is presented here doesn't show her probing into the particular brand of Shariah practiced in this mosque. Did she seek out any assurances that Shariah Law would definitely not be imposed on non-Muslim Murfreesboro residents? Was she at all concerned about the effect on the culture and traditions of those people?
O'brien seems to be a victim of the excessive tolerance which cancels out the healthy skepticism necessary for self preservation. That healthy skepticism ought to be part and parcel of good journalism. I realize, of course, that this special was not meant to be journalism but rather a promotion for Muslim and Shariah acceptance.
One person's religion, no matter what belief, should not be inflicted on another. If there is any way that religion disrupts or encroaches upon another's life it should not be allowed. That is the point where it harms another's freedom of religion.
By this reckoning....
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 7:40pm.
...dispense with all civil and criminal courts and just follow the cannon law of whatever religion the accused, plaintiff or defendant would otherwise choose. Forget about the most basic principle of "rule of law". Just shout that your beliefs are not being upheld and you can stymie justice for personal convenience. Consider it the ultimate sociopathic act.
Soledad solamente
Submitted by SpecialkinNJ on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 8:11pm.
Soledad is a gal who works for CNN (in itself not a venial sin)
and sets out to try us with a palpable bias
and unmistakable liberal spin.
So it's naturally hardly surprising that her feature on mid-Tennessee, enterprising,
gave the region short shrift, and its Muslim residents a lift
in a CNN TV show of her own devising.
And for that, and its other contributions, if any, like Simple Simon we give not a penny,
so last night didn't look in, when it aired at 8PM (EDT) on CNN--
and we're told, neither did that Penny, named Henny.
Egg layer
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:03pm.
S. O'Brien seems to always do Ostrich documentaries. At least the one that I have partially watched.
Apparently, Ms. (has-been,
Submitted by jdhawk on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:18am.
Apparently, Ms. (has-been, always second, NBC outcast) O'Brien, missed this, "Islamist Rally For Sharia Law In United States Must Take Place," (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42010).
The outrageous difference between the religious tolerance here in the US and the zero tolerance demanded by the state of Saudia Arabia is as follows. Let's say that a Christian here in the U.S. comes upon a non believer. The Christian, a devote proselytiser, implores that the non beleiver learn about Jesus. If the non believer should demure, the most the Christian is likely to do is pray for that persons misguideness.
A Moslem in Saudi Arabia comes upon a non believer. The Moslem will check to ensure that person is not a citizen since only Moslems can be citizens of Saudi Arabia. Should the non beleiver demure of the Moslem's questions, he is likely to find himself in jail or possibly put to death. As a citizen, you just don't say you are a non believer in a strict Moslem country like Suadia Arabia. That is a capital crime.
Should that person be a Christian, he is strickly forbidden from practicing his religion openly. Should that Christian attempt to convert a Moslem to Christianity, he could be banned from the country at the lease or at the most put to death by the state of Saudia Arabia. No clergy from any other country are allowed to enter Saudia Arabia for the purpose of conducting a reilgious ceremony.
Don't bother attempting to enter Medina or Mecca in Saudia Arabia unless you are a Moslem. It is not allowed.
The official number of Christians in Saudia Arabis is ZERO.
You mean dittsy O'Brien forget to compare and contrast? Or was she attempting to make the "fly over country" citizens of a small rural town look like wackos and bigots? You betcha!
Apparently, O'Brien doesn't let facts get in the way of a good story. Here she is one of those times: O'Brien drew criticism from FactCheck.org on September 8, 2008, for making a false assertion during an interview with a McCain campaign spokesperson, claiming that vice presidential candidate Palin, as the governor in Alaska, had slashed the special education budget by 62%, when, in fact, she had increased it
Sharia Law
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 10:09am.
She must have missed the women being checked if they were virgins in Egypt. I would ask if she believes in Taqyira( okay to lie) and then ask her about Sharia law.
First Amendment
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 12:59pm.
You all realize, don't you, that the First Amendment separates church and state? Thus, the notion that Shari'a can become the basis of American law is simply impossible under the First Amendment. This is an over-hyped, fear-mongering, non-issue. Shari'a law has about the same chance of supplanting the Constitution as does Jewish law.
Non-issue?
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:06pm.
Really?
http://nation.foxnews.com/justice/2011/03/24/florida-judge-defends-impos...
"A Florida judge is defending his controversial decision to apply Islamic law instead of state or federal statutes in determining whether an arbitration award was correct, the St. Petersburg Times reports."
Yes Really
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:19pm.
Courts can arbitrate under Islamic law provided that all parties agree and the arbitration does not conflict with state and federal laws. If this judge overstepped his bounds in that regard, it will likely be overturned on appeal, as happened in New Jersey when a judge, considering Shari'a law, refused to issue a restraining order. Upon appeal this decision was overturned because Shari'a cannot impinge upon criminal law. Thus, the protections we have built into the Constitution to separate church from state work, and thus, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
You'll forgive me.....
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:22pm.
if I don't just go on YOUR word that I have nothing to worry about. You can spit out all the legal jargon you want, it doesn't change the fact that there are those in this country, I just gave you an exmaple, who think applying Sharia law is acceptable.
The fact that decisions like these have to be overturned in the first place should make you worry.
But I guess if you say there's nothing to worry about.........
What about others
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:34pm.
There are also those is this country, known as Christian Reconstructionists, who have explicitly stated that the government of the United States should be reconstituted according to explicitly Christian law. Are you also worried about that?
And Even Worse
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 1:38pm.
And even worse than Reconstructionists are Christian Dominionists!
Christian Reconstructionists? Yeah, they're the worst.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:56pm.
Death to apostates and homosexuals, stoning of rape victims, honor killings, chopping off limbs as punishment and all that stuff. Vile bunch they are.
Exactly, Sol!!!
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 2:59pm.
Clearly he has no idea what Sharia law entails, however, he does have a noted bias against Christianity......I'm shocked.
NC:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 3:07pm.
He's none too sharp on the First Amendment, either.
Irony
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 5:36pm.
As a non-religious person, I think all religions are nonsense. However, I have a great deal of respect for our Constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms, which allows me the freedom to be non-religious. Moreover, I find it ironic when people cite Saudi Arabia as an example of religious intolerance while pushing their own religious intolerance (in this case anti-Muslim rhetoric). Pot calling kettle....?
Like it or not, the separation clause has been interpreted as applying to any governmental body. Thus no governmental body can pass any law interfering with the free practice of religion. Thus, efforts to pass laws baning the construction of mosques, etc. impinges upon religious freedom. Do you really want to do down that road?
Zoning Laws
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 6:05pm.
Do they infringe on religious freedoms?
Paining with a broad brush
Submitted by Justin Crowe on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 5:27pm.
While it is true that some of these things are part of the sacred texts of Islam, you should also be aware that Christian sacred texts contain stuff just as vile, including wholesale genocide! Nonetheless, few Christians and Jews literally put Old Testament law into practice (such as stoning disobedient children) thus indicating that the vast majority of those who adhere to the Old Testament do not read it literally. The same thing is true in Islam. Few in Islam read the text literally. Moreover, many of the things you cited were indigenous to many of these cultures before Islam even arrived, thus making it difficult to pin their origins on Islam. Furthermore, you can't just imply that these practices represent Islam, because clearly they don't. Doing so is equivalent to claiming that Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church (and their vile practices) represent all Christians, which is as equally unfair and inaccurate. In religious traditions that have fundamentalists (people who are inclined to read the religious text literally) they are a very small minority.
As a "non-religious person, Justin Crowe---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 7:57pm.
you spout pretty definitive statements.
Or are you merely giving your opinion/opinions as to how religions operate?
Or have you just spent tons of time studying an area of life that you personally don't believe in?
MD
Justin
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:43pm.
Maybe you should check out this http://thereligionofpeace.com/, then see if you can see anything comparable on modern day Christianity. There are also many books about women and how they are treated within Islam, as it is practiced today.
Interesting
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 9:28pm.
It is simply impossible just because the First Amendment exists?
Sort of like when I drive down the highway here in TX, I can NEVER, no matter how hard I press down on my gas pedal, go over 70 mph, because the black and white signs that read "SPEED LIMIT 70" make it so?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)