• Despite the German Christmas market attack fitting every definition of terrorism, mainstream media outlets refrained from labelling it as such.
• The mainstream media routinely rush to label violence committed by Muslims as terrorism, a pattern with far-reaching implications that cannot be ignored.
When an ex-Muslim, pro-Zionist ploughed a black BMW into a bustling Christmas market in Germany, leaving a trail of murder and mayhem, the mainstream media’s reporting was as predictable as it was disappointing. Tragically, Taleb al-Abdulmohsen killed five people, including a 9-year-old child and injured over 200 others.
However, something conspicuously missing from most mainstream media outlets was the word terrorism. Despite the attack fitting every definition of terrorism—a targeted, ideologically driven act of violence meant to instil fear (as defined in the Hague’s International Centre for Counter Terrorism). Interestingly, Collins defines the word as follows:
Nonetheless, there was a noticeable reluctance to label the incident as such.
In as early as August, al-Abdulmohsen posted a chilling message on social media:
“Is there a path to justice in Germany without blowing up a German embassy or randomly slaughtering German citizens? … If anyone knows it, please let me know.”
Alarmingly, CNN reported that Saudi Arabia had flagged concerns about al-Abdulmohsen’s radical right-wing views as early as 2007. The Saudis even requested his extradition between 2007 and 2008. However, German authorities declined, citing concerns for his welfare. This refusal came despite the growing warning signs surrounding his extremist ideology.
The question must be asked: why have the mainstream media withdrawn the terrorist label for this horrific attack? Furthermore, this was not an isolated case of journalistic restraint. It is part of a clear and disturbing trend where violence committed by Muslims is quickly branded as terrorism, but when the attacker is from a different background, suddenly the labels change, the language softens, and the actual ideology behind the violence is not scrutinised.
Let’s be clear: the incident which took place at Magdeburg had all the hallmarks of terrorism. It was premeditated, ideologically motivated, and designed to cause maximum damage.
The Selective Use of “Terrorism”
The reluctance to use the word terrorism wasn’t subtle—it was glaring. Instead, since Friday, mainstream media coverage has consistently referred to the incident simply as the “German Christmas market attack,” repeating this phrasing across various outlets.
Studies have consistently shown that the media are far quicker to label violence as terrorism when the perpetrator is Muslim. In fact, a study from the American Press Institute revealed that when the assailant is Muslim, terms such as “terrorist” or “extremist” are used in the very first lines of reports. In stark contrast, when the perpetrator is white, Christian, or otherwise not Muslim, outlets often use language such as, “lone wolf” or “mentally unstable,” distancing the act from any broader ideological or political motivations.
It must be noted, extremist violence comes in all forms, not just from who mainstream media outlets have coined as the usual suspects.
The Hypocrisy is Glaring
In addition to the incidents mentioned above, when Anders Breivik carried out his horrific attacks in Norway in 2011, killing 77 people, the media was slow to label him a terrorist. Why? Because he was a white nationalist. He wasn’t Muslim, so suddenly the ideological motivations were overlooked. Similarly, when Dylann Roof killed nine Black worshippers in Charleston, South Carolina, the media called it a “hate crime” but was less eager to call it terrorism. Interestingly, a white nationalist killed 51 innocent worshipping Muslims in New Zealand—many major outlets avoided calling it terrorism altogether.
Hidden Stats the Mainstream Media Refuse to Acknowledge
The mainstream media’s recurring portrayal of Muslims as the primary perpetrators of global terrorism is counteracted in its entirety by Naveed Shaikh’s study, ‘Body count: A quantitative review of political violence across world civilisations.’ Shaikh’s study found that through genocide, wars and civil wars from years 0 to 2008, a total death toll of 578’993’500 was distributed amongst civilisations as follows in ranking order:
1) Christian 30.73% (Christian civilisations have caused the greatest number of deaths due to religious and politically motivated violence).
2) Anti-Theist 21.64%
3) Sinic 18.64%
4) Buddhist 15.19%
5) Primal-Indigenous 7.87%
6) Islamic 5.52%
7) Indic 0.41%
Dr Naveed Sheikh
The Power of Words: Shaping Perceptions— Driving Implications & Important Stats to Consider
- In a YouGov 2016 poll, 33% think terrorist acts that are carried out by Muslims do tell us something about the nature of Islam.
However, neither the Qur’an nor the Hadith advocate for Muslims to kill innocent people or harm non-combatants. Throughout the Qur’an, Allah (swt) condemns not only the unlawful taking of life by another human being, but also the excessive use of force in response to violence.
“If you [believers] have to respond to an attack, make your response proportionate, but it is best to stand fast.” (Al-Nahl 126).
It’s important to note, terms used in the mainstream media and by politicians such as “Islamists” and “Islamism” distort the discourse, as terrorism is intrinsically divorced from Islam.
- In a Gallup World Poll in 2011, North Americans and Brits were most likely to justify military attacks on civilians, Muslim majority countries, however, were more likely to oppose them. When asked about whether it is justifiable for the military to target and kill civilians. In the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, 85% said it is never justifiable. 50% in the USA and Canada said it is never justifiable.
- In another 2011 Gallup poll, in sharp contrast with Americans who identify themselves with other faith groups, Muslim Americans are more likely to say military attacks on civilians are never justified (78%).
- Pew Research Centre asked Muslim majority countries what they thought of Isis in 2015:In nations with significant Muslim populations, there was much disdain for ISIS.
Furthermore, in his seminal work, Orientalism, Edward Said scrutinised the systematic demonisation of the “Muslim world” by European and American powers. Though not always overt, his analysis unveiled the profoundly gendered narratives that depicted Arab and Muslim men as the primary agents of fundamentalism, violence, and warmongering.
"The Oriental is depicted as something one judges (as in a court of law), something one studies and depicts (as in a curriculum), something one disciplines (as in a school or prison), something one illustrates (as in a zoological manual). The point is that in each of these cases the Oriental is contained and represented by dominating frameworks. In the depths of this representation, however, are two of the most important features of the imperialist vision of the non-Western world: The individual Oriental is always subordinated to the collective image, and this image is articulated to be experienced in part in his foreignness, in part in his enigmatic peculiarities, and in part in his overall insubordination. Such a collective image is a result of, and a part of, the process by which the mass of the Oriental lands and peoples is governed" (Said, Orientalism, p. 40).
The Dangerous Impact of Anti-Muslim and Islamophobic Media Reporting
According to the British police, hate crimes against Muslims in the United Kingdom have risen by 140 percent compared to the same period last year. In addition, the UK anti-Islamophobia organisation Tell MAMA has received a sevenfold increase in reports of Islamophobia since last year. Moreover, several Islamophobic incidents have gained widespread attention on social media, including the case of Terry Eury. Eury a vile individual harbouring Islamophobic views, was captured on film delivering a reprehensible racist diatribe against Muslim women wearing hijabs and keffiyehs. During his tirade, Eury disparaged the women with derogatory terms such as “Muslim c**ts” and “terrorists”.
Although language is an essential facet of journalistic integrity, genuine accountability necessitates a profound commitment to truth and ethical rectitude, ensuring that reporting upholds both factual statements and impartiality.
