It's not exactly a lot of fun having to stick up for Jerry Falwell. This is especially the case when he's done something as dumb as calling Muhammad, the founder of Islam, a "terrorist" on a recent "60 Minutes" installment.
And yet, in the undignified back and forth over the meaning and nature of Islam that seems to play out between conservative Christians and Muslim groups roughly once a week in this country, it may be that Muslims -- or at least, the Council on American-Islamic Relations -- behaved worse in this instance.
All Jerry Falwell did was say something idiotic and irresponsible. This is not news. Neither is it unique to Falwell. For months he has been racing Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson (to say nothing of Ann Coulter) to see who can utter the most provocative slur on Islam.
But I would suggest that a Friday e-mail alert from CAIR, whose subject line read, "ISLAM-INFONET: Deaths Result From Falwell's Comments," is an offense of a different order. CAIR clearly twisted the news in order to put forward the ludicrous -- and chilling -- suggestion that Falwell's behavior has murderous consequences.
In the body of CAIR's e-lert, which took the form of a bulleted list of news stories with short excerpts of each (sometimes followed by links), the above line about Falwell was repeated but now with attribution to a prominent news source: "DEATHS RESULT FROM FALWELL'S COMMENTS (AP)." Scrolling down, however, revealed no actual link to an AP story bearing such a title. Instead, there was a brief excerpt of a report on violence in the Indian city of Solapur that erupted during a Muslim general strike to protest Falwell's comments. So far the violence has resulted in nine deaths and numerous injuries.
A Nexis search for wire stories about the riots didn't turn up any that ran with nearly so provocative a title as CAIR's. In fact, though Falwell's remarks did prompt the demonstrations, it's hard to argue that he turned them violent. The direct causes of the first five deaths were 1) clashes between Hindu and Muslim protesters wielding knives and stones; and 2) police gunfire, presumably to control the crowd.
Indeed, an Agence-France Presse story on the events in India also observed that "a similar strike called by Muslim bodies in India's financial capital Bombay ended on [sic] peacefully." How could Falwell have had anything to do with the difference between Solapur and Bombay? A general strike devolved into rioting in one place but not the other, and in one instance nationalistic Hindus and police were involved.
Much more temperately than CAIR, The New York Times on Saturday presented the events in India objectively: "5 Die in India During Protests Over Falwell." The Washington Post, in turn, reported, "5 Die in Hindu-Muslim Clashes; Televised Falwell Remark Leads to Further Conflict in India." For another, more typical report of what actually happened, see this story.
CAIR, of course, is legitimately worried about incitement to violence against Muslims by this country's Christian right. The group frequently releases accounts of anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States (not to mention misleading polls on anti-Muslim bias and discrimination).
But this paradigm cannot possibly justify CAIR's attempts to blame deaths in India on Falwell. As an American Christian leader, surely Falwell is only capable of inciting his own followers. By seizing on the opportunity of violence in India to smear Falwell, CAIR seems more interested in silencing speech critical of Islam than in preventing hate crimes.
All in all, it's another embarrassing episode for CAIR, which has previously been caught doctoring a website poll over whether Ariel Sharon should be tried as a war criminal after the results turned out, er, unexpectedly. Jerry Falwell should certainly knock off his intemperate and unfair remarks about Islam. But CAIR should apologize for acting like his words killed anyone.
