Articles

Tuesday, June 03, 2014

Muslimsplaining Islamic Terrorism Away

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.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

The problem with "radical Islam" is the problem with Islam.

Many are afraid that if Islam is the problem there can be no solution. That terrifies them. So they do all they can to avoid engaging with the evidence that Islam is the problem.

Anonymous said...

When I call cair they refuse to entertain any of my suggestions.

Anonymous said...

BRILLIANT!!! Thank you!
As an ex-muslim, I am very thankful for your work!

RobertW said...

Wait - you mean people still read Time Magazine?!

Anonymous said...

Great article. You took the whole shuck and jive apart.

Wes said...

In this current milieu of lies that we're living in, the truth of your article can't be stated often enough.

Thank you.

mindRider said...

How come so many people on this planet crave for Islamic rule as many did crave for Nazi or communist rule. People, with percentage wise minor exceptions love being turned into automatons being told what where and how to behave by irrational erratically behaving violent leaders. How can one explain the defense and voluntarily done-ing of headscarfs of normally independent thinking intellectual feminist do-gooders and acceptance of the female subservient position when visiting the Islamic world and them not even speaking out against this for Muslims living in the Western world! How can male do-good intellectual dummies who claim to be in favor of a liberal progressive order of society defend all of the Islamist atrocities and all of Islam's suppression of free thought?
All of this is only explicable by deep defects in the human psychology: the longing for herd behaviour and absolute shutdown of reason and individuality which perhaps secured group survival at the dawn of humanity but that gradually became a hard to shed death trap for individual freedom and development. Let's hope the relative minor percentage of us who cherish liberty and life finds a way out of this latest threat before it throws us back a thousand years.

Anonymous said...

This is because TIME has employed Muslim Journalists, who are given the freedom to write at will.

Anonymous said...

A few corrections:

It is no surprise that Muslims use taqiyya (religious dissimulation) to cover up the real intent of Islam and to advance the jihad unbeknownst to the general population. However, after a dozen centuries of the same, we ought to know by now the real Islam.


Those who play along with the ruse to get along are probably about to be replaced because they are too dumb to survive according to the evolutionary rules governing the survival of the fittest and smartest.


What really gets me are the interfaith dialogue groups that seek to make nice and, rather than come to understand what Islam is all about, they tend to work to invite Islamists into the fold as an oppressed minority within the multicultural mosaic.


The whole idea of “Islamophobia” is a leftist concept being perpetrated by leftists of all religions – even Jewish groups that would like to equate the plight of Muslims in America with their own experiences integrating into America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jews and all previous immigrants wanted to integrate into the West; Muslims and the groups that represent them, want this to be a conquest of the West by Islam. It is a supremacist conquest and the conquerors have plenty of useful idiots doing their bidding.


Muslims can do no wrong according to Americans and Europeans – even the ones who shoot us up and fly into our skyscrapers – the more carnage they create, the more we seem to love and defend them. Terrorism is a win-win these days for terrorists. Obama and his administration have a cognitive disconnect which allows them to separate good terrorists from bad terrorists but in the end they go after none – perhaps due to loyalty to the relgion (all religions are protected in America) and favourable life experiences of a President who was raised in a Muslim family and community environment.

Anonymous said...

Despite what is now generations of Black criminal behavior, it is still considered unmentionable in polite circles. Why would Islam whose influence is much more recent in our country's story, be treated any differently ?
Even the weekly murder rate in Chicago was only mentioned in whispers during Obama's honeymoon phase, as if such statistics cast him in a bad light.
P.C' ness has turned out to be on par with censorship as a way to keep the plebes quiet.

sophie

Edward Cline said...

Is America "Islamophobic"? It ought to be. Just as it was "Naziophobic," and ought to have been "Sovietophobic," but wasn't, thanks for FDR.

Anonymous said...

Secular western elites who tell us not to believe our lying eyes also insult our intelligence.

-- theBuckWheat

The Ray Esquivel said...

But ... but how do you tell the truth to people who either can't see the truth or don't want to know the truth. They will only feel the truth when they are beheaded because they "insult" Islam as infidels.

Nazi's believed themselves to be the super race. But these people believe themselves to be the super culture/religion with their only proof of greatness having been a millenia ago. With their numbers and the invasion of western civilization almost complete, they pose the greatest threat to mankind today, next to all the idiots in the world who go along with their lies.

Johnny said...

No doubt the leftist crowd goes with Islam for reasons of ideology. But too many business interests and governments go along for it to be strictly ideology. There has to be money involved also. It is the corrupting effect of all those petrodollars finding their way back home.

Harvey said...

If I can follow you, are you saying that the POTUS is just a criminal? What a relief! Someone once said there once were criminals in Chicago, so maybe you could be right.

occupant 9 said...

If Time had asked, "Is Islam Americaphobic?" they might have something there. But, to tell the truth is to act on it and that's what stops the telling.

What we do know about Islam is that someone is going to get killed. You can't say the same thing about any other faith idea. And since Islam makes it personal, the killing is real.

The term "Islamophobe" is an attempt to make it seem unreasonable to use reason when analyzing Islam.

Stephen Duff said...

Yes.

Anonymous said...

I learned every thing I needed to know about islam on 9/11/01 but thanks any way.

firefirefire

Anonymous said...

Muslimsplainer Dean Obeidallah uses the term "Muslim explaining" to refer to critics of Islam and Muslims http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/05/bill-o-reilly-muslim-hunter.html

Post a Comment