O’Reilly’s Burqa Betrayal

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of the critically acclaimed and best-selling, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. His new book is High Noon For America. He is the host of Frontpage’s television show, The Glazov Gang, and he can be reached at jamieglazov11@gmail.com. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com.


Pages: 1 2

Bill O’Reilly is clearly continuing his shameless and cowardly surrender to Sharia Law. Daily on his program, The O’Reilly Factor on FoxNews.com, he engages in the standard and phony obfuscations about the jihadi threat the West faces, consistently refusing to honestly name and label the Islamic foundations of the terrorist enterprise. Back in April 2010, he blatantly sided with our society’s dhimmis, blaming South Park for doing the Mohammed shows. Rather than praising Parker’s and Stone’s courage, standing up for their right to make any script they wished, and denouncing the despots who threatened their lives (and the tenets of the Islamic religion that sanction such threats), O’Reilly publicly promoted submitting to Sharia Law, thereby surrendering to the forces who killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

Now, this past Tuesday, on his July 13 program, O’Reilly hit a new low, making a grotesque statement about the millions of suffering persecuted Muslim women around the world. In a bizarre debate with Laura Ingraham about France’s move to ban the burqa, O’Reilly flippantly jokes about a tragic and deadly reality in which any serious, sensitive person would find nothing laughable. With great self-satisfaction, O’Reilly teases Ingraham about “rooting for the French” while mind-bogglingly siding against the French ban. He makes a disparaging reference to “the Western eye” to imply that forced veiling is only oppressive through our Western lens — as though there is no universal standard of human rights. Priding himself on being for “tolerance” and, therefore, for being in favor of allowing Muslim women to veil, he affirms that “most” Muslim women want to veil themselves.

A vile statement like this reveals such ignorance and heartlessness in the face of mass human suffering that one does not even know where to begin in response. But here, nevertheless, the attempt shall be made:

First and foremost, stating that “most” people favor something in an environment where verbalized dissent or oppositional action is viciously punished is meaningless. In other words, to say that “most” Cubans support Castro or that “most” North Koreans support Kim Jong Il, when anti-regime thoughts and acts will, in these circumstances, get a Cuban or North Korean imprisoned, tortured or killed, is disingenuous and erroneous to the extreme.

Thus, the slightest suggestion that Muslim women “want” to veil themselves pushes millions of suffering victims into invisibility. Under Islamic gender apartheid, expressions and actions by women in support of the ingredients of the tyranny that enslave them are utterly hollow if, within the societal structure, any contrary expression or behavior will be punished by social stigma, imprisonment, maiming, mutilation, torture, gang rape and execution. So, in Islamic cultures, women do not have a choice concerning whether they can veil or not veil. If they decide to throw their covering off, they will face horrendous punishment, which includes, like in the case of 20-year-old Fatima Bibi, acid being thrown in the face and, as in the case of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez, murder.

This tragic suffering of Muslim women under these barbaric and sadistic circumstances of Islamic misogyny is tragically manifested in these heart-breaking photos of Muslim women, collected by feminist hero Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who have been disfigured by acid attacks for having trespassed the vicious codes of Islamic Law. I encourage Bill O’Reilly to take the time out to look at these pictures of real women whose faces have been disfigured by Muslim men. I encourage him to ask himself: Why did these women suffer these savage attacks? What theology inspires this murderous rage? Most importantly: Does it make sense, and can one possess even a shred of a real human heart, to make joking statements in support of Muslim women veiling when one knows that not veiling presents terrifying consequences to the women?

If a person truly cares for human justice, doesn’t it make more sense to stand up for Muslim women’s right not to veil and not to face ferocious violence and mutilation if they choose not veil? If a person has true integrity, wouldn’t they be interested in the Islamic teachings, rooted in the Qur’an (i.e. Sura 24:31) and in the hadiths, that mandate veiling and sanction this kind of fascism against women? Wouldn’t a person who is truly devoted to human rights prioritize exposing these teachings and confront them in an effort to eradicate the fertile soil in which the oppression of Muslim women grows?

The key issue, therefore, is that Muslim women are not free to make their own choices and making the wrong choices will culminate in severe punishment. How does Bill O’Reilly not know this? And if he knows it, how can he so cavalierly and flippantly talk about how “most” Muslim women supposedly want to veil? What if Jews, for instance, were once again forced, in any given society, to suddenly start wearing mandatory articles of clothing to identify and distinguish themselves from other people? Would O’Reilly be nonchalantly setting up creepy debates with Laura Ingraham on this issue as well, taking the side of how “most” Jews in that particular situation somehow supposedly wanted to wear the articles of clothing? Does he really not recognize the complete accuracy of this analogy? And does he not gauge the wound he would be delivering to the Jewish people about whom he was speaking? Does he not recognize the same wound he is delivering, with his smug mercilessness, to the millions of Muslim women suffering behind the Islamic Iron Curtain?

Pages: 1 2

  • Carolyn

    As a long time O'Reilly fan, I nearly choked on my anger and all I could manage to say was, "Go for the jugular, Laura!!!"

  • Ghostwriter

    My opinion is that O'Reilly thinks that he's being fair and balanced. Unfortunately,by not tackling this issue,he ends up looking foolish and if he's not careful,he'll end up in big trouble.

  • Jedi Master

    What Oreilly is saying is approving the equivalent of how Muslim women are are brutally and verbally abused and supressed by their Muslim men as a prostitutes are by their pimps.

  • Alarmer

    I do not care whethe the Moslem woman wears the burqa willingly or she is forced to do it, because either way the Moslem woman is brainwashed like all the moslems.

    I care about the safety of innocant peoples who might be killed by moslem male terrorists dressed as females and wearing the burqa.

    I ask Mr. O'Reilly, is there a difference between the burqa and the mask? and is the mask allowed to be worn in streets and public places.

    Please wake up!

  • Chuck

    The only time these truly cowardly Muslim men will wear a "veil" is when they are running around in their terrorist clothing and cutting heads off people in Jihad execution videos. I agree that the women do not really have a choice. The women who live in very strict Muslim regions are treated as less than human. Contrast that with the compassion that Jesus showed to women such as the woman at the well, Mary Magdeline, and the woman whom he set free from a stoning. Mohammed, meanwhile, was a bigamist and pedophile, having married several very young women. Since the Muslims follow Mohammed, it's no wonder they treat women like this.

  • Chuck

    Christians follow Jesus, who had compassion on women such as Mary Magdeline, The woman at the well, and the woman he set free from a stoning. Muslims follow Mohammed, who was a bigamist and a pedophile, having married several very young girls. No wonder the Muslims treat women like this, they are playing follow the leader.

  • richard

    after obama was elected he began his slide. he is doing what he is told to do now. possibly sees it as survival of fox as rights in the u.s. lessen? it is disheartening. i generally will turn the channel when i see incidents such as this. i do not believe this is the way he feels.

  • richard

    CAIRO — The Saudi billionaire whose investment firm is one of the biggest stakeholders in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. said he is looking to expand his alliances with the media giant, in the latest indication that his appetite for growth remains robust even as his company retrenches.

    Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a nephew of the Saudi king and who was listed last year by Forbes as the world's 22nd richest person, met with News Corp.'s chief executive Rupert Murdoch on Jan. 14 in a meeting that "touched upon future potential alliances with News Corp.," according to a statement released by his Kingdom Holding Co. late Saturday.

    Media reports have indicated that News Corp, parent to Fox News and Dow Jones & Co., among others, may be thinking of buying a stake in Alwaleed's Rotana Media Group, which includes a number of satellite channels that air in the Middle East.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/BigPat7 BigPat7

    O'Reilly leaves MUCH to be desired!

    My general comment: In the states there will only be Sharia law over my dead body.

    Last night I watched a movie called The Stoning Of Soraya M. The story of a lady sort of separated from her slut-around husband in Iran. Based on true story.

    In the end, over some false allegations by her husband, who wanted divorce but couldn't do it financially, her stoning and death was much more affordable, and quite tolerated by mayor of this rural community, as well quite tolerated by local Imam.

    We already have essence of some of this creeping into the states; with 'honor killings' and 'female genital mutilation', and Lord only knows what else.

    This is the United States of America by God, and any Muslim actions that violate OUR laws need to be dealt with in the most severe fashion! You either adjust to our customs, laws, idiosyncrasies, and language is year one, or hit the frigging road and go back home!

    We will NOT have burka or veil wearing bimbos in the states whatsoever. Who knows, it could be a Jihadist in drag hiding his face!!!

    Its time for all these customs from the old country be shed, assimilate into America, or return home!

  • http://hecatr.livejournal.com/ Joe

    Any blow against the advancement of sharia in Europe and engagers in hijra is good. We've seen the kind of fear with which governments respond to Muslim protests when only 3-5% of the population is Muslim. Islam is a disease and must be purged for these people to assimilate into Western society. Geert Wilders for EU President!

  • Seek

    Bill O'Reilly doesn't want to lose his job security. The Saudis own a huge chunk of Fox News Channel. He's not going to offend them.

  • Jacob

    From the position Mr. O'Reilly has it is unfortunate that he chooses to use it so poorly, when so many suffer from such a sickness, as Islam.

    Anyone who even makes a small attempt at the Koran, knows there areno second ways. In 1400 years the message hasn't changed and over that time period well over 200,000,000 have perished, for being a nonbeliever.

    Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly feels he has the funds to pay the dhimmi tax, but that doesn't cover the children who will be taken for Islam.

  • kfc20

    Fox news, as has the US military, has been compromised. Follow the money.

  • Arthur

    O'Reilly doesn’t understand the reason for French opposition to the burqa: If the burqa is legal, some women wear it, and some don't, and those who don't are subject to frightening violence.
    Sadly, Fox has assumed an anti-Israel stance by the prominent role it affords to Reena Ninan, Geraldo Rivera and Andrew Napolitano. (Hannity is good, but his focus is on domestic issues.)
    Please, someone complain to Fox, and ask them to provide some pro-Israeli commentators, such as Alan Dershowitz. If Fox News won't protect the Jews from the unprecedented onslaught of leftist anti-Semitism, what TV outlet will?

  • jason taylor

    "I think Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham are missing the point just a bit. What Muslim women "want" is secondary, it seems to me"

    No, that actually is not the point. All cultures demand of their members concessions to rules whether they "want" them or not. Very few Jews ask to be circumcised for instance. Very few Amish ask to be educated with an education that fits them only for Amish life. In fact all of us are molded by our cultures without our consent. Come to think of it when did anybody here ask to be taught to give such a high priority to individual choice?

    The "point" is that Moslem women can be killed for not wearing veils. Which is a lot different.

  • miles

    ONCE AGAIN RUSH IS RIGHT!

    "He's Ted Baxter," Limbaugh said, referring to the pompous newscaster played by Ted Knight in the '70s on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show."

    "Sorry, but somebody's got to say it," Limbaugh continued.

  • Anon E Mous

    O'Reilly is one of those smart people who are unable to connect the dots for fear of being accused of jumping to conclusions.

  • Ron McCamy

    Dr. Glasov writes, "One can’t help but ask: what is O’Reilly’s educational background?" O'Reilly is a graduate of Harvard University. I'm sure Dr. Glasov new this, since one would never write a critique without having a thorough knowledge of the facts. I happen to agree that O'Reilly tends to posture as the paradigm of "balance." This causes him to make some very odd statements, many of which he has to correct later. His latest comments about Muslim women were superficial to say the least.

  • http://blog.forsythe.hk Peter F.

    Great article Jamie! (I'm sure O'Reilly has been bought, eg the Saudi money via Fox; ask yourself — would you do the same? Is there any price worth it to sell out the west?….)
    My comments on a couple of recent articles against the French burka ban…. http://thebattleoftours.blogspot.com/2010/07/argu
    Cheers from Moscow, en route St Petersberg….

  • Jon in SF

    Does O'Reilly also believe most Islamic women also desire female circumcision,
    which is often mutilation and a clitorectomy? Since this is often done in prepubesence,
    he could argue they will never miss the pleasure they never knew.

  • Lori

    Bill Seems to be Clueless! One needs to question what side he really is on?

  • Toa

    I heard something within the past couple of weeks about FNC being muscled into not making any negative comments about anything Islam by some Muslim shareholder (as touched on by WildJew above). This seems the best explanation for this disturbing stuff.

  • Mark J. Koenig

    I saw the clip Jamie references and was as sickened by O'Reilly's attitude on this issue as he was. It's appalling but unfortunately not unusual for O'Reilly to make such inane statements. He does so on a frequent basis. Rush Limbaugh has good reason to mock O'Reilly as he does by referring to him as "Ted Baxter."

  • Geppetto

    How O'Reilly reached #1, assuming this is true, is a mystery, how he stays #1 is truly baffling but, as interesting a speculation as this might be, O'reilly is far from being alone in his smug dismissal of any criticism of Islam. Champions of Conservatism such as Glenn Beck and Charles Krauthammer both expressed their view, on camera, that Geert Wilders was a religious bigot not to be taken seriously. Is this in line with some FOX News policy directive? Perhaps, perhaps not but O'Reilly and these otherwise intelligent individuals, are joined by the vast majority within academia, the media, the military and in all levels of government which have long ago been infiltrated and indoctrinated by Muslim advocates intent on the global imposition of Sharia law; no matter how long it takes. "Stealth Jihad," is a book written by the Islamic scholar, Robert Spencer. It should be required reading especially for those convinced of the colossal lie that Islam is a religion of peace. For anyone truly interested start with Mr. Spencer's website, http://www.jihadwatch.org and become familiar with a growing network of people, websites and organizations dedicated to exposing the truth about the threat of political Islam, a threat that goes largely unheralded because of this prevailing, widespread ignorance.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/michiganruth michiganruth

    O'Reilly is NOT a conservative. and yes, he's been caving to Muslims for some time now. it's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about…he played the whole thing for laughs, IMHO.

    now as an American who leans libertarian, I have to say I have concerns about banning any sort of clothing. I would agree that you can't cover your face and expect to be able to cash a check, board a plane, drive a car. but you know–if you want to walk down the street wearing a blanket, I'm ok with that.

    so in that sense I'm glad we don't have a burka ban, just like I'm glad we don't have a ban on making anti-Islamic statements as France also has.

    but that "freedom" thing is too nuanced for O'Reilly. tell you the truth, I look forward to the days he's on vacation and Laura Ingraham sits in–she's far better.

  • Guest

    O'Reilly seems to think that whatever he says or does is just too adorable. When he defended the burqua that was the straw that did it! Am not going to watch him anymore. He is at times boring and overbearing.

  • courtnye

    Quit watching Ol Bill long ago. At least for the last two years he has assumed the "bend over position". Wonder what the pay off for him was? Maybe he joined Oprahs church, you know " A New Earth" . I have to say that one must guard their mind, stay firm and planted in the truth, which STARTS in Genesis and ENDS in Revelations. It's just real sad to see someone that you think is strong become so weak.

  • Old Soldier

    O'Reilly is a blow hard, egotistically pumped up by himself and his ratings, I watch his show every night but it's getting harder and harder to do so. He takes silly stands like this to bolster his claim that he is an Independent–and wiser than the rest of us. To support the burka "right" is preposterous. In this day of terrorism, we cannot have anyone in America walking around completely covered up, carrying bomb vests.n Wait, America, bomb vests are coming soon. O'Reilly needs to get his pompous butt in line with us.

  • MarkR

    Bill O'Reilly has been on the air for 14 years- since 1996. The first time I ever saw him I was sorely unimpressed. The man is NOT a serious journalist or commentator. He is a SELF PROMOTER first and foremst. That being said his format, litany of guests and the general makeup of his show is interesting and that makes his show work for the most part. O'Reilly loves to be perceived as the REASONABLE one, and that is why at every turn he will attempt to take a middle course if available. This issue with the burqa's as well as the Obama presidency is just him seeing daylight to look like the enlightened one. I personally believe his disposition to place himself in the independent category of political association is nothing more than his vain need to appear as enlightened and separate. I wouldn't trust this guy in a foxhole.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/topperj topperj

    Kudos for being able to watch O'Reilly and keep us posted. Gave up on him some time ago. He is a snake and not to be trusted. Other than that, he's a great guy. Ugh.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dar_al_Harb LibertyLover

    Bill O'Reilly's role model is Ted Baxter (Mary Tyler Moore Show).

  • PFJ

    Follow the Money!! There is only ONE thing that could be influencing Mr. O'Reilly to repeatedly defend outrageous Middle Eastern practices and politics: MONEY. Bill most certainly has a big chunk of his millions invested in Middle Eastern businesses. Case in point: During the brouhaha surrounding the proposed Dubai Ports deal, O'Reilly argued on one of his shows in an uncharacteristically emotional, subjective way IN FAVOR OF awarding the contract to Dubai, a rich Muslim emirate. O'Reilly said something like, "It's a good plan. There is NO reason to reject it. To be against it is … is… is RACIST!!" O'Reilly has ALWAYS ridiculed pulling the "race card!" Why was he all of a sudden pulling the same irrational "race card" to make a point? For Bill to get SO emotional and frustrated at counter arguments to the Dubai deal, he most certainly was feeling threatened by those arguments. I'd bet you anything, he's got big investments in the Gulf emirates, somewhere, somehow. And he'll continue to pooh-pooh the evil of the growing Muslim empire.