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?
One can’t help but ask: what is O’Reilly’s educational background? Has he really never read or heard anything about how despotisms and apartheid structures enforce dress codes for the purpose of totalitarian ends? In all of his years on this planet, has O’Reilly truly never become aware of how the enforcement of such codes plays a crucial role in keeping the structures of tyranny and the enslavement of a people in check? Maoist unisex clothing, for instance, had a ruthless and vicious purpose. Does O’Reilly really not grasp that dress codes in the Islamic world, such as the niqab and the burqa, which Phyllis Chesler has accurately termed “isolation and sensory deprivation chambers,” play a fundamental role in keeping the chains of gender apartheid in place?
And so, one now wonders: what are Bill O’Reilly’s motives in all of this? When, for instance, will he invite guests like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish and Wafa Sultan? When will he invite Phyllis Chesler, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer? These guests will be able to tell him and his viewers a lot about the fate that Muslim women suffer for not wearing the veil – and the theological reasons for their suffering. They will be able to introduce him to both victims of attempted honor killings and family members of those who have been brutalized or murdered for not wearing the veil.
How much time has O’Reilly really devoted to trying to locate the families of victims of honor killings to invite them on his show? Is he interested? Does he care? How many of his shows have included these kinds of guests and discussions?
Proposition to Bill O’Reilly: Imagine a Muslim woman in a niqab or burqa sitting with her husband and family in a house. All of a sudden, she begins to announce that she does not approve of wearing her covering, nor of the Islamic theology behind it. She suddenly throws off her covering and runs outside. And she does this because that is what she wants to do. Question to Bill O’Reilly: What do you think would happen to such an individual? Do you care? Do you support her for following her own conscience? Does her fate in any way make you rethink the wisdom of going on national television, in front of millions of people, and opposing veil bans in the name of “tolerance” and, off the top of your head, talking about how you think “most” Muslim women want to wear the veil?
Feminist hero and a survivor of Islamic oppression, Wafa Sultan, has crystallized this dark and tragic reality well. In talking about the veil and how it is not a choice even when someone would think it appears to be, she says:
In 2005, I traveled to Syria with my American friend. We visited a small Syrian island (Erwad). My friend noticed that the majority of women in that place were head covered. I asked our tour guide to explain the reasoning behind it. I asked: “Are ALL women on this island covered? Without any hesitation he responded: “Yes, they are ALL covered except for a few whores.”
So, yes, it might be their decision, but it’s not their choice. When you make a decision, your society does not necessarily allow you to freely choose. The decision in this case is made to avoid humiliation and reprisal by the Muslim community around these women.
So, to conclude: Bill O’Reilly, keep in mind, that when you justify Muslim veiling without stressing the consequences for Muslim women for not veiling, then you are in league with the oppressors of millions of women — and you are calling out for, and are complicit in, the institutionalization of the burqa and niqab.
And so, is there really any other conclusion but that freedom fighters such as David Horowitz, Phyllis Chesler, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Christine Williams, all of whom are on the frontlines fighting for Muslim women, are our society’s real heroes? They are true patriots.
And, hence, for behaving like a dhimmi, and for sacrificing Muslim women on the altar of his own narcissistic yearnings to be popular, to get ratings and to appear as “balanced” in the eyes of the liberal-Left, Bill O’Reilly continues to be the ultimate Pinhead. And that’s no joke.
_Editor’s note: To get the whole story behind why our culture is reluctant to come to the aid of suffering and tortured Muslim women, and to be honest about the Islamic theology that engenders their plight, read Jamie Glazov’s most recent book, “United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.”_