New York Times Claims “Moderate” Al Qaeda Disavows Boko Haram


The media already works full time trying to claim that Islam has no links to terror and that every other Muslim terrorist group is really moderate.

The rush to relabel Muslim terrorist groups as moderates has finally reached Al Qaeda as reporters insist that Al Qaeda is disavowing Boko Haram’s kidnapping of schoolgirls… because it hasn’t issued a comment.

No, seriously.

No surprises there, as this senseless kidnapping of children has been roundly condemned by almost the entire world. But how has it gone down with al-Qaeda, to which Boko Haram professes nominal allegiance?

More than three weeks have elapsed since news of the abduction first emerged and the reaction from al-Qaeda’s core leadership has been interesting – total silence…

It might sound ironic that a movement which extolled the murder of nearly 3,000 people in the 9/11 attacks of 2001 should draw the line at this latest atrocity, committed in the name of the jihadist cause.

What line is Al Qaeda drawing? Does Al Qaeda have to comment every time Boko Haram does something horrible? Is a lack of comment equivalent to a condemnation?

The BBC, quoted above, is bad enough, but the New York Times really beclowns itself trying to show that Al Qaeda is critical of Boko Haram over the kidnappings.

Since the New York Times can’t get Al Qaeda to issue a condemnation, it instead quotes two anonymous posters on a Jihadist forum somewhere, one of whom is unhappy about the attack.

“Such news is spread to taint the image of the Mujahedeen,” wrote one dubious poster on a web forum used by Islamic militants whose administrator uses a picture of Osama bin Laden.

So someone, somewhere, on a forum that uses Bin Laden’s picture, one of the more popular pieces of iconography in the Muslim world, questioned the PR fallout from the attack.

Or was he suggesting that it was all made up? Who knows. Who cares. Certainly not the New York Times.

The New York Times then uses mildly critical posts on some Jihadist forum to claim that they represent the “dismay of fellow jihadists”. Somehow this already shaky claim is used to prop up the suggestion that Al Qaeda condemns Boko Haram.

“The violence most of the African rebel groups practice makes Al Qaeda look like a bunch of schoolgirls,” said Bronwyn Bruton, an Africa scholar at the Atlantic Council in Washington. “And Al Qaeda at this point is a brand — and pretty much only a brand — so you have to ask yourself how they are going to deal with the people who are doing things so hideous even the leaders of Al Qaeda are unwilling to condone them.”

Like what?

Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban committed more horrifying atrocities than Boko Haram. The difference is that Boko Haram kills more people. But for sheer cruelty, the Taliban top AQIQ and Boko Haram.

Boko Haram is in many ways an awkward ally for any of them. Its violence is broader and more casual than Al Qaeda or other jihadist groups. Indeed, its reputation for the mass murder of innocent civilians is strikingly inconsistent with a current push by Al Qaeda’s leaders to avoid such deaths for fear of alienating potential supporters.

This is an actual paragraph in an American newspaper. Its editors live in another New York City in which Al Qaeda didn’t slam planes into the World Trade Center.

Then the Times moves on to arguing that Boko Haram is a victim of Islamophobia because the left loves making excuses for evil and blaming the victims for the crimes of their killers.

  • Douglas J. Bender

    Who owns The New York Times? A Muslim billionaire?

  • Jack Diamond

    Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al-Shabaab are directly and financially linked to Boko Haram, whose actual name is Sunnis for (Islamic) Propagation and Jihad (nothing Islamic about that). So the search for “moderates” in the Global Jihad apparently now includes al Qaeda (in fairness this happened with Zarqawi in Iraq too being thought too “extreme” for regular al Qaeda) just as it had the Muslim Brotherhood. Boko Haram justifies every thing they do, including taking “war booty” by reasons of Islam. (The Qur’an even has a sura called Spoils of War) How is the “Books Bad” murders of Christians and apostates any different than that of jihadis anywhere? What is unique about it? What is their goal, again? A pure shari’a state. Is that different than al Qaeda, Hamas, the Brotherhood, the Sultan of Brunei, the Islamic Republic of Iran, CAIR, the OIC, the majority of the Muslim World which is obligated to implement Allah’s laws? Most of these schoolgirls are Christians, a fact the media neglects to mention or put in the context of the effort to terrorize and eliminate Christians. Nor will they touch the subject of slavery in Islam, the sanctioning of the rape of captives, or the example of Muhammad in all of this, including the reason Abubakar Shekua says he will sell off to marriage girls as young as nine. I’m surprised the New York Times hasn’t followed up on the rumors the kidnappings were actually done by Procol Harum, who are not Islamic at all.

  • edlancey

    Same in the UK – representing Al Qaeda as the equivalent of doughty old Marxist revolutionaries.

  • Joe

    Times, You have got to be kidding! moderate Muslims are the ones holding the legs of the infidels being beheaded by the extremist muslims

  • SDLakeshore

    Love to watch writers stumble all over the place trying to provide a coherent scaffold to support such an oxymoron. Like trying to posit that Richard Simmons is a modest fitness buff. Doesn’t work.

  • Candid View

    Islam is a religion that was founded, nourished and flourished on violence. All Islamic terrorists world wide have the blue print of their ideology copied and rooted in what Islam live and stood for. Those so called moderates only wait for time to metamorphose into another BOKO HARAMS in any nomenclature they chosen to bear.