Here comes Haroon Moghul, the comic relief of the “Islamophobia” victimhood propaganda industry, again. In life poor little Haroon so cowers in fear of “Islamophobic” coffee servers that his Starbucks name is not Haroon but “Dwayne,” but he is a paper lion behind the keyboard, trafficking in defamation and dishonesty and taking advantage of his audience’s ignorance about Islam to invert reality, portraying Muslims as victims of a cruel “Islamophobia” machine, instead of non-Muslims threatened by the global jihad.
In this notably confused piece, he is intent that we recognize “the distinction between the practices and the person.” This is quote rich coming from a man who has made a career out of smearing those who call attention to the violent texts and teachings of Islam and how jihadis use them, claiming that we are targeting or endangering or collectively blaming all Muslims. But his point here is not that the Qur’an teaches violence and hatred, but any individual Muslim might be a wonderful person, which would be an entirely reasonable point to make. Instead, even by Haroon Moghul’s standards, this piece is quite muddled: “The Pope believes that certain Trump policies are at odds with Christianity as he understands it. But was he figuratively (given that Trump is not Catholic) excommunicating the GOP frontrunner? After all, Francis didn’t say Trump’s practices were un-Christian. He said the person who espoused those tactics ‘is not Christian.’”
But Trump does espouse those tactics, and so the Pope was actually saying that he was not Christian. Moghul appears to be trying to claim that the Muslims of the Islamic State perform practices that are un-Islamic, but that doesn’t mean that they themselves are not Muslims. “But beneath the bluster of the moment, it also offers an inadvertent opportunity to reflect upon why mainstream Muslims eagerly condemn ISIL as un-Islamic, yet are often reticent to deny ISIL members their Muslim identity.” Actually, only Dwayne’s fellow “Islamophobia” propagandist Reza Aslan and perhaps a handful of others have ever admitted that the Islamic State is made up of Muslims; most Leftist and Muslim analysts (and most conservatives as well, for that matter) strenuously deny that they are Muslim at all.
“ISIL is objectively, inexcusably brutal. They target innocent civilians, attack indiscriminately, and use rape as a weapon. None of these behaviors are Islamic.” Really, Dwayne? Let’s see:
“ISIL is objectively, inexcusably brutal.” Is that Islamic?
“This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.” (Qur’an 5:33)
“Narrated Abu Qilaba: Anas said, ‘Some people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in ‘Al-Harra’ and when they asked for water, no water was given to them.’ Abu Qilaba said, ‘Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle.’” (Bukhari 1.4.234)
“They target innocent civilians, attack indiscriminately, and use rape as a weapon.” Is that Islamic?
Targeting innocent civilians: “One whom I do not suspect told me from Anas b. Malik: When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him, and I rode behind Abu Taiha with my foot touching the apostle’s foot. We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, ‘Muhammad with his force,’ and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, ‘Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.’ Harun told us from Humayd from Anas similarly.” (Ibn Ishaq 757)
Attacking indiscriminately: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Muslim 4321) “They are from them” is permission for an indiscriminate attack on the polytheists even though their women and children were there.
Using rape as a weapon: “Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.” (Muslim 3371) This hadith is about whether one must practice coitus interruptus while raping female captives; the idea that raping them is just fine is taken for granted by all concerned, including Muhammad. How has the Islamic State behaved any differently with Yazidi and Christian women?
Moghul is right: many Sunni authorities and leaders call groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State takfiris because of their frequent practice of pronouncing takfir upon, or excommunicating, other Muslims. But they acknowledge the principle of takfir itself as Islamic, so here again, disingenuous Dwayne is up to his old tricks.
“What the Pope’s fight with Donald Trump accidentally teaches us about Islam,” by Haroon “Dwayne” Moghul, Quartz, February 21, 2016:
There are a couple neat things about the Donald Trump versus Pope Francis spat. Besides making for entertaining television (and even more entertaining Twitter), the scuffle has turned out to be a pretty good way to explain what Muslims mean when they say that the Islamic State isn’t Islamic.
In case you missed it, Pope Francis condemned Donald Trump’s policies on Feb. 18: “A person,” the pontiff said, “who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel.”
A predictably angry Trump fired back: “If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President.”
That escalated quickly. But, as you can see, it’s not just me that’s interjecting ISIL and Islam into the debate. I’m just using their public clash as a teachable moment.
The distinction between the practices and the person is critical to understanding why Muslims condemn ISIL. The Pope believes that certain Trump policies are at odds with Christianity as he understands it. But was he figuratively (given that Trump is not Catholic) excommunicating the GOP frontrunner? After all, Francis didn’t say Trump’s practices were un-Christian. He said the person who espoused those tactics “is not Christian.”
The distinction between the practices and the person is critical to understanding why mainstream Muslims condemn ISIL in the way they do. Nearly every Muslim leader and organization I can think of rejects ISIL, though they rarely go so far as to excommunicate their opponents (as ISIL itself does.)
But such reticence shouldn’t be interpreted as hesitancy.
There are few practices considered more taboo for a Sunni Muslim (the tradition I’m more familiar with) than excommunication. The Muslim world’s repeated attempts to reject and rebuke ISIL are neither insincere nor half-hearted. They simply reflect the belief that condemning the person, instead of the practice, places you on a slippery slope.
ISIL is objectively, inexcusably brutal. They target innocent civilians, attack indiscriminately, and use rape as a weapon. None of these behaviors are Islamic. But none of these are exclusive to ISIL, either. The Assad regime, and the Hezbollah forces who fight alongside them, commit many of the same crimes. They may not make celebratory videos, nor expand their targets beyond the Syrian people, but that doesn’t take away from the ugliness of what is happening….
Trump’s spat with the Pope is yet another ridiculous episode in a presidential campaign that has been defined more by its buffoonery than by any principles. But beneath the bluster of the moment, it also offers an inadvertent opportunity to reflect upon why mainstream Muslims eagerly condemn ISIL as un-Islamic, yet are often reticent to deny ISIL members their Muslim identity. It’s true that Muslims don’t recognize any figure with the kind of authority possessed by the Pope. But more importantly, most Muslims see excommunication as fundamental to extremism–and therefore as anathema to them.