I've heard people in this forum argue that it has nothing to do with religion since most of these disaffected rioters are SECULAR.
These paragraphs tell us that there is something more to it than meets the eye ....
Treating its readers with a modicum more respect, the NY Times at least acknowledged that “a majority of the youths committing the acts are Muslim”—but buried that tidbit more than 1,000 words into a 1,400 article. And in the same sentence, the paper hastened to add that “the mayhem has yet to take on any ideological or religious overtones.”
No religious overtones? Then why did many of the rioters, after a canister of tear gas rolled up to the steps of a mosque on Day 4, reportedly declare that their actions were a “Jihad”?
The “Jihad” chants were only reported by the mainstream media, it appears, by Newsweek’s Christopher Dickey in a piece for the November 14 issue titled, “Rage on Rue Picasso: Will the riots swell the ranks of jihadists in Europe?”
Of course everyone knows that the fact that the rioters are primarily Muslim is significant. How is a different question. But it is self-evident that the violence is largely unique to Muslims. That’s why even the AP and the BBC, both of whom otherwise pretend to be blind to the religion of those destroying whole towns, mention that it is Muslim leaders urging calm.
The BBC, while engaging in absurd acrobatics in its reporting on the riots to avoid even the mention of the word “Muslim”—unless it’s to describe those calling for peace—has an entire series on the state of Muslims in France. It is labeled “background” for the riots stories—and it was only kicked off after the riots had raged for several days.
The role Islam—whether as opportunistic rallying cry, through hateful teachings in the name of the religion, or otherwise—played in the riots is something we might not know for some time. If ever. But it is certainly relevant. So why do so many in the mainstream media consider it not even worth mentioning?