Commentator E.D. Hill criticized what she described as renewed claims of Islamophobia in the United States while pointing to a recent scene in Times Square as an example of growing tension surrounding discussions of radical Islam.

Hill made the remarks while discussing reactions from Muslim groups following a public demonstration in Times Square that drew attention on social media and in news coverage.

Her comments referenced both the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the public response to more recent events.

“Just like in the days after 9/11 we are back to Muslims across the country crying about Islamophobia. It's everywhere. How dare we be afraid of radical Islam? Why in the world would anyone be Islamophobic?” Hill said.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

Hill then referenced a video that circulated online showing a public gathering in Times Square.

The location, often described as the crossroads of the world and known for large public celebrations such as the annual New Year’s Eve ball drop, became the focus of her remarks about religious demonstrations in major American cities.

“Hmm, where is that? No, that's not Iraq. It's not Afghanistan. That's Times Square. A few days ago, the crossroads of the world, the place where the ball drops, New Year's Eve, which, by the way, would be a violation of Sharia law, playing music and celebrating, if it were anywhere in the Muslim world, never before have we witnessed a scene like that in the middle of America's largest city,” Hill said.

Hill continued by describing how scenes like the one she referenced might be perceived by Americans observing the demonstration.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

“So why would that make some non Muslims uncomfortable? Why would normal, everyday Americans, who just want to go to work and then go home with their families, think a scene like that is somewhat threatening, because no other religion puts the world under constant threat of death and destruction like Islam,” Hill said.

Her remarks included references to passages from the Quran and the broader debate surrounding interpretations of Islamic texts. Hill said that certain passages have historically been cited by critics as justification for violence carried out by extremist groups.

“Quotes from the Quran repeatedly call for bloodshed. Kill the idolaters, wherever you find them, kill the Jews, kill the infidels,” Hill said.

Hill argued that recent demonstrations and tensions across the country reflect deeper disagreements over how religion, immigration, and security concerns intersect in American public life. She said Americans observing public displays tied to radical Islamist ideology may feel uneasy about the potential implications.

“Right now, we're seeing the results of this, once again, in cities and small towns across the United States,” Hill said.

Hill also connected the tensions she described to broader geopolitical conflicts involving Western countries and the Muslim world. According to Hill, many protests and demonstrations in the United States are tied to the perception among some activists that Western nations are attacking Islam.

“And of course, as always, the inspiration is the perception of the Western world attacking Islam,” Hill said.

WATCH:

Debates surrounding Islamophobia and criticism of radical Islam have intensified periodically in the United States since the September 11 attacks.

Civil rights organizations, Muslim advocacy groups, and national security commentators have often clashed over how public officials and media figures should address the issue.

Supporters of stricter scrutiny of Islamist ideology argue that extremist interpretations of Islam present a national security threat that should be openly discussed.

Advocacy groups representing Muslim Americans have countered that criticism frequently crosses into discrimination or hostility toward Muslims more broadly.

Hill’s remarks reflect one side of that debate, focusing on concerns about radical Islamist ideology and its impact on public safety and social cohesion.

Her comments circulated widely online as Americans continue to argue over how the country should address religious freedom, national security, and the limits of political speech in public discourse.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.