Muslimsplaining Islamic Terrorism Away
By Daniel Greenfield
SultanKnish.Blogspot.com
As bloody bodies and smoke rise into the air
after a cry of Allahu Akbar and a bomb detonation,
each Muslim terrorist attack is followed by
"Muslimsplaining" why the latest act of Islamic
violence had nothing to do with Islam.
Sometimes the Muslimsplainers are Muslims. Often
they aren't even Muslims.
When Boko Haram, an Islamic terrorist group aligned
with Al Qaeda, kidnapped Nigerian girls, the media's
Muslimsplainers sprang into action to explain why it
had nothing to do with Islam.
Time featured "5 Reasons Boko Haram is Un-Islamic";
a listicle friendly article from one of those
non-Muslim experts on why Islam is feminist .
"With their sustained campaign of murders and
kidnappings, the members of Boko Haram conduct
themselves in a manner that could barely be more
alien to the Prophet Muhammad teachings," the
article claimed. Mohammed spread Islam through a
sustained campaign of murders and kidnappings.
Claiming that murder was alien to Mohammed is like
claiming that pledge drives are alien to PBS.
As proof, Time cited a statement from Saudi
Arabia’s grand mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz al-Sheikh
that Boko Haram was “set up to smear the image of
Islam.”
This is the same Sheikh al-Sheikh who called
for destroying all the churches in the region
and
marrying off 10-year-old girls. Destroying
churches and raping schoolgirls is exactly what Boko
Haram stands for. If you believe the media, the same
grand mufti who supports raping children in Saudi
Arabia as Islamic... opposes raping them in Nigeria
as un-Islamic.
Either the Sheikh places a higher value on Nigerian
girls than Saudi girls or like Mohammed,
he considers all women "deficient in
intelligence and religion", "harmful to men" and
destined for hell.
The only reason the double Sheikh who speaks out of
both sides of his mouth denounces Boko Haram and
other Al Qaeda groups is because he is a mouthpiece
for the Saudi ruling family which opposes them.
Saudi Arabia isn't opposed to Al Qaeda because it’s
un-Islamic. It's opposed to Al Qaeda because the
Islamic group wants to replace the House of Saud,
upsetting the deal between Wahhab and Saud that
created a balance between the tyrannical royal
family and the mosque.
Saudi Arabia and its mouthpieces don't oppose Al
Qaeda because it's un-Islamic. They oppose it
because it's too Islamic for them.
Muslimsplaining by non-Muslims is dishonest. Time
claims that Mohammed opposed harming women and other
non-combatants when he and his men enslaved and
raped captured women. It claims that Islam opposes
forcibly marrying off underage girls, when Mohammed
married an underage girl and the very Muslim
religious leader quoted by Time in its
introduction supports it.
Time claims that Boko Haram's war against
Christians is un-Islamic and yet the Saudi grand
mufti it cites who called for the destruction of
Christian churches based his demand on Mohammed's
deathbed statement, "Two religions shall not
co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula."
If we are to believe Time, not only is Boko
Haram un-Islamic but so is the Grand Mufti of Saudi
Arabia that Time quoted to prove Boko Haram
is un-Islamic.
And so is Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam.
If Mohammed is un-Islamic because he raped girls,
enslaved women and murdered religious minorities in
a campaign of violence and slavery... is there even
an Islam?
Either Mohammed, the founder of Islam, is un-Islamic
so that Islam, as defined by the Muslimsplainers,
doesn't exist. Or the Muslimsplainers are lying
about Islam.
Muslim countries are some of the
world's most religiously intolerant places and
they are also the places
most likely to treat women and girls like dirt.
You can either believe the independent statistics,
the quotes from Muslim clerics and from Mohammed...
or the Muslimsplainers who claim that the
condemnation of Boko Haram by a totalitarian Islamic
country whose religious police shoved schoolgirls
back to die in a burning building because their
hair wasn't covered proves that the group has
nothing in common with the moderate form of Islam
practiced in Saudi Arabia and by its international
gang of clerics.
Is the real Islam to be found in Nigeria, Saudi
Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt or is it to be found
in mainstream media Muslimsplaining articles which
act as if real life in Muslim countries and the
actions of the Prophet of Islam have nothing to do
with Islam and can be waved away with a listicle?
Muslimsplaining by Muslims is even more offensive to
the victims of Islam.
CAIR, an organization linked to terrorism, insisted
that the 9/11 Museum censor mentions of Islam.
Essays Muslimsplain to the victims that the religion
in whose name their friends and relatives were
killed had nothing to do with killing them and that
the feelings of that religion matter more than their
sorrow or the truth.
Muslims insist on constructing a Ground Zero Mosque
and Museum of Islam while their own "moderate"
religious leaders call for destroying all the
churches in the Arabian peninsula.
Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy of the Masjid Manhattan
mosque resigned from the interfaith advisory panel
to the 9/11 Museum and warned that the movie would
offend Muslims. “Unsophisticated visitors who do not
understand the difference between Al Qaeda and
Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of
Islam."
What is the actual difference between Al Qaeda and
Islam? It's best not to ask Sheikh Elazabawy who
called Jews a "cancer" and accused them of
killing all the prophets. CAIR staged a press
conference protesting the film at which a speaker
accused the Jews of killing Jesus.
It's the same rhetoric that Al Qaeda and Muslim
terrorist groups have used. Muslimsplainers like
Sheikh Elazabawy warn Americans against offending
Muslims by implying that Al Qaeda is Islamic even as
they talk like Al Qaeda. Muslimsplainers want
tolerance, but they aren't willing to give it in
return. They aren't calling for tolerance, but
carving out spaces of Muslim privilege.
That's not fundamentally different than what Islamic
supremacist groups like Al Qaeda or Boko Haram do.
The only difference between Muslim supremacist
"moderates" and "extremists" is that the extremists
are honest about their supremacism while the
moderates hide behind tolerance.
"The film ignorantly implies a religion, rather than
a group of criminals, was to blame for the September
11 attacks," CAIR insisted.
Criminals don't commit suicide by flying planes into
buildings. Criminals seek to profit from their
crimes. The 9/11 hijackers were not criminals. They
weren't robbing the World Trade Center. They were
trying to kill as many non-Muslims as possible in
the name of Islam. They were willing to die because
they believed that they would be reborn in a
paradise filled with eternal virgins and young boys
serving wine. They believed that they would be able
to murder, die and profit because of Islam.
The checklist for the 9/11 hijackers told them to
read the Koran into their hands and touch their
knives and passports to endow them with magic Koran
powers. It promised them that airport security would
not stop them except through the will of Allah. When
they attacked, they were urged to shout praises of
Allah and to remember that, "the women of paradise
are waiting."
"Strike for Allah's sake," the 9/11 hijackers were
told. "Implement the way of the prophet in taking
prisoners. Take prisoners and kill them. As Allah
said: 'No prophet should have prisoners until he has
soaked the land with blood'".
These aren't the words of criminals. They are the
motives of religiously devout men who worship death
and killing. Censoring references to Islam from the
9/11 Museum would be like eliminating all mentions
of National Socialism from a Holocaust museum.
It's not an act of tolerance because it lies by
omission and that perpetuates the intolerance of the
ideology responsible for the atrocity.
Do the
Muslimsplainers of CAIR really believe that Al
Qaeda is a gang of criminals? Every leader of Al
Qaeda has been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Under its current leadership, Al Qaeda is
effectively a splinter group of the Muslim
Brotherhood. According to the Egyptian government
their ties go even deeper than that.
CAIR has
close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. It also
has a history of supporting another Muslim
Brotherhood
terrorist group, Hamas.
Does CAIR really believe that when one Muslim
Brotherhood linked terrorist group massacres
civilians it's a gang of criminals, but when
another Muslim Brotherhood linked terrorist
group does it they are good Muslims?
Nihad Awad, the
founder and executive director of CAIR, said, "I
am in support of the Hamas movement."
Al Qaeda
has urged support for Hamas and Hamas
responded to the death of Osama bin Laden by
saying, "We condemn the assassination of a Muslim
and Arab warrior and we pray to Allah that his soul
rests in peace. We regard this as the continuation
of the American oppression and shedding of blood of
Muslims and Arabs."
CAIR supports Hamas. Hamas supports Al Qaeda. Yet
the Muslimsplainers at CAIR would like us to believe
that they don't support Al Qaeda, even though it's a
branch of the same Muslim Brotherhood tree.
CAIR even took money from an Al Qaeda linked
front group. But CAIR would also like us to believe
that any association between Al Qaeda and Islam was
made up by Islamophobes last week.
If Al Qaeda is a gang of un-Islamic criminals, then
Hamas, which supports Al Qaeda, is also an
un-Islamic gang of criminals. That means that we
can't believe anything that CAIR says about Islam
because it is, by its own admission, an un-Islamic
gang of criminals.
Since virtually every Muslim organization in this
country is interlinked with CAIR, they too are
un-Islamic gangs of criminals and we should ignore
anything they say about Islam.
Now that the official Muslimsplainers have all outed
themselves as un-Islamic criminals maybe we can have
an honest discussion about Islam. And that
discussion must begin by acknowledging that
religious tolerance and respect for the rights of
women are un-Islamic.
It's either that or believe that Al Qaeda and
Boko Haram, not to mention Pakistan, Iran, Saudi
Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Kuwait, Qatar and
the United Arab Emirates, with a combined population
of about half-a-billion Muslims, are all un-Islamic.
And then where are we to find any actual Muslims
except the hypothetical ones in Muslimsplaining
mainstream media articles?
Either the Muslimsplainers are right and real Islam,
like real Communism, doesn't actually exist in any
Muslim country on earth, or they're wrong and real
Islam is what we're dealing with here. It isn't a
gang of un-Islamic criminals kidnapping schoolgirls,
blowing up churches, flying planes into buildings,
beheading prisoners and murdering people over
Mohammed cartoons.
It's Islam.
The Muslimsplainers insult our intelligence and the
countless victims of the Jihad from Africa to Asia,
across the Middle East and in Europe and the United
States, with their lies. If any of them really
oppose Islamic terrorism, then they need to realize
that lying about what it is won't make it go away.
And those Muslimsplainers who claim not to support
terrorists, but only support the terrorists who
support the other terrorists, aren't the solution,
they're the problem.
We can't expect them to tell the truth. But we
should tell the truth about them.