Written by Daniel Greenfield
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.
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.
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.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century. He blogs at Sultan Knish.