Any time the mainstream media raises the question of whether there is something violent about Islam, you can be sure that their learned analysts will find it as peaceful as the day is long. Here Pamela Geller skewers yet another example: “CNN’s War Against Truth,” by Pamela Geller, Breitbart, January 21, 2015:
In the wake of daily jihad attacks (thwarted or deadly), CNN clearly is losing control of its narrative that Islam is a religion of peace and Islamic jihad is not Islamic. From the very beginning of its propaganda piece “The War Within Islam,” which aired Monday night, CNN’s agenda was clear.
The show was full of dissembling, dishonesty, and dissimulation from beginning to end. The title itself, “The War Within Islam,” is a lie. Where do we see evidence of a war within Islam? We don’t see millions of Muslims marching against jihad and Sharia. On the contrary, hundreds of thousands of Muslims marched in Chechnya against the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. In Iran, mobs chanted, “Death to France.” In Pakistan, over 10,000 marched and attacked police, and in Niger anti-cartoon mobs torched forty-five churches. They are marching for jihad and for sharia.
The only war is on the truth. “Moderate” Muslims are not arguing with jihadists; instead, they’re arguing with those who oppose jihad, claiming that Islamic jihad is not Islamic. The war is in the Western information battle-space, where CNN and the rest of the mainstream media are busy spinning, twisting, and contorting the narrative. This argument should be taking place in the Muslim world, but it is not — with the notable exception of President el-Sisi in Egypt.
Alisyn Camerota of CNN says, “1.6 billion people around the world practice Islam today, and most Muslims will tell you it’s a peaceful religion. But still, questions persist about whether there is something inherent to Islam that lends itself to extremism.”
CNN described guest Maajid Nawaz as a “former Islamic extremist.” Maajid Nawaz is the founder of the UK’s “counter-extremism think tank,” the Quilliam Foundation, a group that has the ear of the British government and counters “extremism” without ever fully confronting the roots of that extremism in the Qur’an and Muhammad’s example. Nawaz claimed that jihad “comes down to a combination of four factors: a sense of grievance, identity crisis, charismatic recruiters who provide a sense of belonging, an alternative sense of belonging from mainstream society, and the role that ideology plays.” So no Islam here, folks. It is not surprising that Nawaz would focus first on “a sense of grievance”: victimhood is part of jihad. But “identity crisis”? Identity is the one thing that is not in question. The jihadis’ identification with and love for Islam is orgiastic — the more devout, the more Muslim, the more inclined they are to wage jihad.
Where were the critical scholars of Islam and the counter jihad activists on the program? Bobby Ghosh, CNN’s Global Affairs Analyst, was the former TIME magazine World Editor. He was responsible for those two outrageous cover pieces — “Is America Islamophobic?” and “Does America Have a Muslim Problem?” — during the Ground Zero mosque controversy. In 2011, Ghosh declared on MSNBC that to a practicing Muslim, burning Koran is much worse than burning the Bible, because the Koran is directly from God, while the Bible isn’t.
CNN devoted a large part of this spectacle of whitewash to what should we should actually call the Islamic jihadists. Bobby Ghosh, CNN’s Global Affairs Analyst, made the salient point that these jihadists are called mujahadeen (holy warriors) in the Muslim world and that there is an acceptance that these people are claiming to fight in the name of Allah. But this was not explored at all despite the fact that a large portion of the special was devoted to what words we should or should not use. It was instructive as it gave viewers an inside peek into how the media twists itself in knots so as not to offend Islam.
Al Jazeera and Huffington Post writers like Ahmed Shihab-Eldin weighed in with their fair share of taqiya (deception to advance Islam), so it can be said that on balance, there was no balance.
One of the featured experts on the Qur’an was Daisy Khan, Executive Director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, who insisted that there was nothing in the Qur’an that justified any of the violence done in the name of Islam today. She also claimed that blasphemy is not punishable by death.
There is no reference in the Qur’an, uh, which prohibits Muslims from drawing a cartoon or an image of the prophet. Uh, this ruling came from the prophet himself, who was actually concerned about people idolizing him, or worshipping idols. He was surrounded by idol worshippers, and so he told people, do not make any images of anything, any, eh, you know. And it’s similar to what’s in the Ten Commandments, which says do not create ingraven images. So, so really the ruling came from that, then the scholars extended it to saying that we should prohibit all images of all prophets and God. 1,400 years, we have not been creating images of prophets or God… It did not start in the Qur’an. It is a prophetic saying.
Cuomo asked Khan, “And is it taught that you’re supposed to kill people who do it?” Khan replied: “No. It’s actually, the Qur’an actually says that if somebody, you know, mocks your religion, you should go, either walk away from them or dialogue with them.”
Khan doesn’t mention that Muhammad said, “Whoever curses a Prophet, kill him,” and the Qur’an says, “He who obeys the Messenger [that is, Muhammad] has obeyed Allah” (4:80). She doesn’t tell CNN viewers that the Qur’an says, “Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Next, and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment” (33:57). How will they be cursed in this world? By being killed: “Cursed they will be. Wherever they are found, they are seized and all slain” (33: 61).
And as for “prophetic sayings,” Khan doesn’t mention these, recounted at a Muslim website in Britain:
In a sound hadith the Prophet commanded that Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf be killed. He asked, “Who will deal with Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf? He has harmed Allah and His Messenger.” He sent someone to assassinate him without calling him to Islam, in distinction to other idol-worshippers. The cause of that lay in his causing harm to the Prophet. That indicates that the Prophet had him killed for something other than idol-worship. It was for causing harm. Abu Rafi, who used to harm the Messenger of Allah and work against him, was also killed.
Similarly on the Day of the Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet.
In another hadith about a man who used to curse the Prophet, the Prophet said, “Who will save me from my enemy?” Khalid said, “I will,” so the Prophet sent him out and he killed him.
Saud Anwar, the mayor of South Windsor, Connecticut, answered a question about violence in the Qur’an by saying, “If you look at the Qur’an in the broader sense, 114 times it’s mentioned in the Qur’an that God is the most gracious and most merciful.” Camerota agreed that jihadis had “bastardized” Qur’anic teaching and gently challenged Anwar’s claim by noting that they justified their actions by citing the Qur’anic passage that directs Muslims to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them” (9:5).
Khan responded to this not by explaining this passage but by saying, “Nothing justifies killing, because in Islam, Islam is a religion of law and there is due process.” When Cuomo cut in, “But it’s a literal interpretation,” Khan pressed on with more nonsense:
It’s a literal interpretation, but it’s also contextual, so it may have happened in a specific incident where the prophet was, was being attacked, so he was given permission to fight those particular people. However, there are rules of engaging people in combat. And the rule is you do not kill non-combatants, you do not kill innocent people, you do not destroy property, you do not commit rape, you do not terrorize people and you do not declare war, without – you actually declare war, you do not do, you know, clandestine type of operations. So they’re breaking all the rules of warfare. And so even though the Qur’an gives permission for self-defense and fighting your enemies, it does not say that you have to take matters into your own hands. And surely you have to follow the rulings that the scholars have established for the last 1,400 years. Imagine if we didn’t have these rulings, we would have had mayhem all these years.
We have had mayhem all these years, but Khan is counting on CNN viewers not knowing Islam’s 1,400-year history of genocide, land appropriations, cultural annihilation, and enslavement. Her claims in this are false or deceptive: Islam does forbid killing innocent people, but many Muslim scholars say no non-Muslim is innocent. Rape is not forbidden when it comes to infidel women captured in battle: the Qur’an explicitly gives Muslim men permission to have sex with their wives and the “captives your right hands possess” – that is, sex slaves captured in jihad warfare (see Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50). This Islamic State is following the rulings that Islamic scholars have established for 1,400 years. That’s the problem.
But the clueless Camerota tells Daisy: “So interesting to hear what the Qur’an really says and means rather than what the terrorists claim it does.”
Daisy Khan is a perennial favorite of the media — she is perceived as a modern moderate. And yet in a glowing puff piece in MORE magazine in January 2011, Khan’s mask momentarily slipped:
But not every opinion of the Shura Council or its members reflects Khan’s views. At the council’s October meeting at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, she seemed distracted—texting, reading e-mails, taking cell phone calls—as 18 women sat around a table in an oak-paneled room for nearly 10 hours straight, parsing the Koran in excruciating detail. Then the result of a recent poll of WISE’s members on the subject of female genital cutting was announced. The question was, “Is cutting harmful to women?” Khan was standing when she heard that four women had responded no… “Who are those four?” she asked sharply, and then, seeing the discomfort on several women’s faces, she smiled, rolled her eyes and shrugged.
She shrugged at clitoridectomies (female genital cutting)? As soon as she saw the “discomfort” on the faces of women who had approved of this barbaric practice, she shrugged it off?
This is the Muslim “expert” CNN brings in to explain it all for you. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS et al never invite scholars critical of Islam or counter jihad activists to educate or elucidate. But no matter how much of this shameless propaganda CNN and the rest of the media pump out, they won’t be able to obscure the grim reality of Islamic jihad. Americans are waking up.
jihad3tracker says
Yes, as courageous tireless 24/7 counter-jihadist Pam Geller puts it : “losing control of” the “narrative” nails what is happening perfectly.
That is also why Nihad Awad and his fellow frat boys at CAIR buy the giant size bottles of Tylenol . . . .
MIgraine headaches amply supplied by ISIS, Boko Haram, and weekly entrepreneurial murderers in Allah’s freelance battalions.
Ah, I can hear their wonderful voices now — “We don’t need no friggin’ stealth timetable. You U.S. based pussified wimps get too comfortable ! Regular meals, silk suits, daily showers ? Just let some of us actual fighters get you in a room for five minutes . . . Even Preparation-H won’t solve the — uh — colonic adjustment problem.”.
blindguard says
I misinterpreted this peace, thinking Pamela Geller was the woman in the video on the stool on the right. It was quiet small before I clicked on it.
As I was waiting for the video to start I was actually thinking, well that’s a bit unfair on CNN if they’ve got Ms Geller on to debate.
I turned it off as soon as I realised. Where was my head?
Must be going soft.
Dave J says
Is the Islamic ideology inherently violent? Let’s see, there might be something to that, if I can just put my finger on it… Oh, yes: “Kill the infidels wherever you find them, Strike at their necks”.
To those who defend this with the “Well the Bible is violent, too” argument: Yes, most religions have taught violence, particularly against competing faiths. But the critical point is that Islam is the only one armed with AK47s and carrying out massacres in the 21st Century.
To say that “all religions have done it” just shows what rubbish religion is and that it’s only purpose is to enrich the theocratic clerics and turn one group against another.
Will Doohan says
Hmmm. If all religions have done it in the past, does that make it morally acceptable in our time? And if murdering in the name of religion IS morally acceptable, does that mean that it’s ok for Christians, Hindus, Jews, Atheists, etc.to shoot, bomb and kill Muslims?
( I don’t advocate or practice violence against others.)
deja vu says
The next time someone says this to you, point out that the Bible does not teach violence against competing faiths or anything else. The accounts of battles in the Old Testament narrate the history of the Israelites.They are descriptive – not prescriptive.
Jesus, teaches us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate you, which I think you’d agree is a very difficult thing to do. Nevertheless, He commanded it. There is no Golden Rule in Islam.
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. (Luke 6:27-36)
Fighting those of other faiths is never sanctioned in the Name of Christ. It is mandatory in the name of Allah.
MKG says
Interesting post Deja vu.
Buddha said, “hate has never yet dispelled hate, only love can dispel hate.” A Buddhist will kill you with kindness (figuratively seeking of course). However, they would not hesitate to beat you for your treachery afterwards. I wonder if the act of loving your enemy and being generous in according to Jesus’ teachings makes you all the more righteous in taking action against them if they return your kindness with treachery.
Again, interesting post. Have a nice day.
Michael Copeland says
The Bible – big difference – is NOT part of US law. Koran IS part of Islamic law. One who denies any verse is to be killed, which can be done vigilante style by anyone without penalty “since it is killing someone who deserves to die” (Manual of Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveller” (a free download) o8.4, o8.7(7)).
Bezelel says
If only there was a war within islam, Truly there isn’t.
voegelinian says
Well, there is a war within Islam (and has been for 1300 years — Sunnis vs. Shia and more broadly the Muminin vs. the Munafiqs). The problem is not that there isn’t a war within Islam; but rather that both sides are fanatically evil and want to kill and/or subjugate us.
terry says
Accurately and articulately stated, Voeg.!
Champ says
On the video they discuss which is the right word/term for terrorism: RADICAL EXTREMISTS VS ISLAMISTS?
I think islamists is more accurate; and I refer to them as islamic terrorists/supremacists–or better yet, “devout muslims”.
And “radical extremists” is similar to obama’s term: “fanatics”, which is HUGELY misleading …
fa·nat·ic (fə-năt′ĭk)
n.
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
obama is claiming that muslims are exercising *unreasonable enthusiasm* ..but what obama means is that they’re unreasonable due to ‘twisting’ what the quran teaches–which is patently false. They haven’t twisted anything, since the quran clearly teaches muslims to lie and to murder the infidel. Terrorists are in fact devout muslims. Period.
And, yes, Pamela, there *is* a war against the Truth! ..for shame.
Mirren10 says
” … –or better yet, “devout muslims”.
Yep, that’s the one !
MKG says
The best part of that whole piece came from the ex-jihadist. I believe what he said about the living conditions of the young folks who are attracted to islamic jihad is truthful. Not altogether a poverty thing, even wealthy people can be spiritually dead or disillusioned with things. He did not try to deny that islam preaches violence. If islam did not empower people to assert themselves with divine consent, the disillusioned would look elsewhere for guidance instead of the quran. I would like to have heard more from him. His comments definitely are more valuable, because he was a player, an active jihadist who knows exactly why he was participating, not some pencil neck trying to sell us on a watered down version of islam. You notice none of the others really answered the questions. They just dance around a bit.
If you want them to talk, give them a little sugar. Encourage them to enlighten you. Soon enough you will learn all. There is a saying from the North, “A glib tongue sings to it’s own harm.”
voegelinian says
I see that Maajid’s “Better Cop” routine has caught a fish on his hook…
MKG says
Beware of the enemy that talks nicely to you. Maajid went home empty handed and so have you.
Xero_G says
Muslim apologists always make assertions about “true Islam” without offering supporting evidence, except for a few peaceful-sounding Koranic verses (that have been abrogated by violent verses – which conveniently never get mentioned). When will these talking-heads educate themselves about Taqiyya, or Abrogation?
The Jihadists, by comparison, support their actions with accurate citing of Koranic verses that anyone can verify online through many free Koran websites.
Why is the West so comfortable with ignorance and lack of curiosity to investigate Muslim’s claims?
Myxlplik says
Interesting, the truth to these things can be found in about 30 seconds on Google. I wonder why nobody mentions all the Jews Mohammed had raped and murdered, or the dead satirists, who mocked him? This is why most mainstream media outlets are not relevant any longer.
http://youtu.be/Aza63eHks8s
Myxlplik says
Murdering poets, just takes about 10 minutes, simple.
http://youtu.be/ZPmwUWrSXFI
Xero_G says
Person 1: “Islam promotes violence against non-Muslims in hundreds of verses in the Koran, testimony in the Hadiths and throughout the life-story of Muhammad as detailed in the Sunna”.
Person 2: “No it doesn’t, Islam is peaceful and Muhammad was a peaceful, compassionate, perfect man.
TV Talking Head: OK, that was interesting. Thank you for coming, goodbye.
Myxlplik says
Crazy huh, especially when it just so darn easy to find the truth…, but at some point the public has to be able to think on their own, because clearly these people have sold out.
Angemon says
Yup, that’s pretty much it. Person 1 can consider themselves lucky if they don’t get accused of being racist, hateful, islamophobic bigots.
vlparker says
The war in islam is sunni vs. shia. Barbarian vs. barbarian. There is no war of moderates vs. radicals.
Salah says
@ vlparker
“There is no war of moderates vs. radicals.”
Yes, there is. It’s not a war of moderates vs. radicals, though; it’s rather a war of “Nominal Muslims” vs. “True Muslims.”
Nominal Muslims badly want a new peaceful version of Islam based on the Mecca verses; they will fail to find it because it does not exist.
When they realize this version does not exist, most of them will eventually leave Islam. They’ll become Islam’s fiercest enemies.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2014/01/egyptian-muslims-tear-up-quran.html
voegelinian says
Salah is peddling the Moderate Muslim under another name (a rose by another name stinks the same).
Salah says
@ voegelinian
(a rose by another name stinks the same)
I agree. Anything and anyone remotely connected to Islam will always stink because Islam itself, as well as its founder, stink.
That said, Muslims who are sincerely trying to cleanse their “holy” books and/or their “thinking” from violence deserve some respect.
After all, who cares about their beliefs? they may worship Allah or Muhammad or a stone if they wish to. What really matters is their complete and total rejection of violence.
Champ says
What really matters is their complete and total rejection of violence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree, Salah …and their rejection of sharia law, as well.
vlparker says
I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Salah says
@ vlparker
It’s already happening. They are leaving Islam by the millions.
Cairo: In a sign of unprecedented concern, Egypt’s top Islamic official recently warned against the spread of atheism in the traditionally religious country.
http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egypt/rise-of-atheism-in-egypt-sparks-concern-1.1406120
And…
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/05/dying-islam-lislam-mourant.html
MKG says
That would require a severely edited rewriting of the quran. One to fit modern time in terms of civility. Not impossible, bit highly improbable. Interesting comment vlparker.
Ren says
This is how lies about violent islam spread making people think islam is a religion of peace… through a show like this one from CNN where guests are pro-islam no matter what !
sheik yer'mami says
“Violent extremism” LOL! The PC BS is already an exoneration of the subject matter.
mortimer says
The evidence of the Islamic DEATH SENTENCE for blasphemy is overwhelming!
So where do Muslim terrorists get their deadly ideas?
From Islamic Commentaries:
-“Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions… whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be EXECUTED even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir.” – Ruling on one who insults the Prophet, Shaykh al Munajid, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 22809
– “The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But NOW HIS FORGIVENESS IS IMPOSSIBLE because he is dead, so the EXECUTION of the one who INSULTS HIM REMAINS the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out.” – Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438
-as-Suyuti writes: “(If they break their oaths…) This ayah (K. 9:11-12) is used as a proof by those who say that if a dhimmi attacks Islam (verbally) or the Qur’an or MENTIONS the Prophet in a bad manner, HE IS KILLED, whether he has broken a treaty or not. Those who say that his repentance is accepted use as a proof, ‘hopefully they will stop.’”
-“(And if they) the people of Mecca (break their pledges) which are between you and them (after their treaty (has been made with you) and assail your religion and DEFAME THE RELIGION OF ISLAM, then FIGHT (Arabic: kill ‘q-t-l’) the leaders of disbelief: Abu Sufyan and his host. Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist from breaking their pledges.” – from Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
– Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: “Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet. Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective.” – Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/735
-“It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent ‘Ali and az-Zubayr to KILL him. Ibn Qani’ related that a man came to the Prophet and said, “Messenger of Allah, I heard my FATHER say something ugly about you, so I KILLED HIM,” and that did not distress the Prophet. – Hadiths
From Koranic Verses Censoring Criticism of Islam:
-K.2:193. “And FIGHT (q-t-l) them until there is no more Fitnah” (disagreeing with Mohammed), i.e. fight and KILL disbelievers until no one expresses disagreement with Mohammed.
-K.9:11-12 “But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and TAUNT YOU for your Faith, – FIGHT (and KILL) ye the chiefs of Unfaith, for their oaths are nothing to them, that thus they may be restrained.”
-K.11.173 “Believers, RETALIATION is decreed for you in BLOODSHED.”
-K.58:5 “Those who oppose Allah and His Messenger will be laid low”…with violence.
From Approval of Vigilantism by Top Islamic Religious Authorities
In 1993, top Sunni religious authorities from Al Azhar University confirmed that vigilantes may commit murder in the enforcement of Sharia law if the state does not do it. This means every single Muslim has implicit authorization from Islam’s top authorities to commit vigilante killing to defend Islam.
From the Sharia law manual Reliance of the Traveller:
Sharia permits the murder of anyone who verbally opposes Islam, since they are at war with Islam:
“There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-Muslim (harbi) at war with Muslims.” -Reliance of the Traveller, o4.17, p.593
Blasphemers must be killed according to the above. The panelists are vile liars.
Kilfincelt says
I love the comment regarding Jihad that it didn’t originally mean what it seems to mean now. The fact is that 97 to 98% of the references to Jihad in the Qur’an, Hadiths and life of Muhammad refer to militant Jihad. Even Bernard Lewis agrees this assessment. Furthermore, 9.5 (the sword verse) nullifies all the peaceful verses in the Qur’an.
G179 says
That is really lousy journalism. Not asking a single question about blasphemy laws, lashings and death sentences for blasphemers in muslim countries – and allowing so many standard lies and Taqiyya tactics by muslim propagandists. Welcome to the CNN madrassa.
Say No 2 Mo says
DAMN well nearly fell of my chair on hearing Daisy Khan at 17:10 min.
After explaining the delights of Quranic warfare then with a glaring irony scuttled the argument by suggesting,
“Imaging if we didn’t have these rulings, we would have had mayhem all these years”
Mayhem ? why surely not!
CNN: “Very helpful context”
Note to the folks at CNN. If you want to know what the Quran really says, just pick the DAMN thing up and DAMN well read it.
acomnenus says
CNN crews are just a bunch of idiots. Nothing more, nothing less.
As symple as it is.
Marken says
CNN has a base viewership which is presented to advertisers in block form, that block composes mostly of those who buy into their template view of islam, Those loyal viewers will keep watching. CNN could care less that you disagree with their theme, If you are watching, you are part of the block, it pays the bills week after week..
smarty says
Pam
Your website has been down for 2 weeks. I cannot access it from any computer or my phone. Is there an update or am I missing something here. Would appreciate a response.
Thx
Keith says
Pam has a temporary website at http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/pamela_geller/
I hope this helps