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.”
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!!!"
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
Fox news, as has the US military, has been compromised. Follow the money.
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?
"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.
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.
O'Reilly is one of those smart people who are unable to connect the dots for fear of being accused of jumping to conclusions.
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.
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….
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.
Bill Seems to be Clueless! One needs to question what side he really is on?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bill O'Reilly's role model is Ted Baxter (Mary Tyler Moore Show).
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.