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.
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 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 that Time quoted to prove Boko Haram is un-Islamic.
And so is Mohammed.
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.
Muslimsplaining by Muslims is even more offensive to the victims of Islam.
Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy of the Masjid Manhattan mosque resigned from the interfaith advisory panel to the 9/11 Museum and warned that a documentary about terrorism would offend Muslims.
This was the same Sheikh Elazabawy who called Jews a “cancer.” Muslimsplainers like Elazabawy want tolerance, but they aren’t willing to give it in return. They aren’t really for tolerance, but for carving out spaces of Muslim privilege.
That’s not any 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 willing to die because they believed that they would be reborn in a paradise filled with eternal virgins and young boys serving wine.
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 are the motives of religiously devout men who worship death and killing.
Do the Muslimsplainers of CAIR really believe that Al Qaeda is a gang of criminals? Under its current leadership, Al Qaeda is effectively a splinter group of the Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. It also has a history of supporting another Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group, Hamas.
Nihad Awad, the founder and executive director of CAIR, said, “I am in support of the Hamas movement.”
Al Qaeda urged support for Hamas and Hamas denounced the killing of Osama bin Laden 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.
If Al Qaeda is a gang of un-Islamic criminals, then Hamas which supports Al Qaeda is also an un-Islamic gang of criminals. We can’t believe anything 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 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.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.