The Washington Post has now changed this headline, apparently after receiving torrents of ridicule for it, but consider this: imagine if a prominent foe of jihad terror died, and the Washington Post was writing about his death. Imagine that this individual had never called for or condoned any violence, much less terrorism, and had stood all his life for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. And he wrote about how Islamic jihadis used the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and oppression. Do you think the Washington Post would headline his obituary in such a respectful manner?
Of course they wouldn’t. They would headline their story, “Far-Right Islamophobic Extremist Dies” or some such. If such a person were murdered, they would suggest in their story that he brought it on himself with his “extremist” rhetoric.
But al-Baghdadi, a mass murderer, enslaver of Infidel women, villain of history? An “austere religious scholar.” That’s where we are today.
Also, it’s likely that the Post’s propaganda masters were unhappy with this headline for implying a negative view of Islam. Al-Baghdadi, a twister and hijacker of the true, peaceful Islam, a “religious scholar”? Actually, it was accurate: he had a PhD in Islamic theology. But that fact doesn’t fit the narrative, and so must be deep-sixed.
Buraq says
Austere religious Islamic scholar commits suicide and takes three innocent kids with him. Clowns!
JW_Reader says
Ilhan Omar is grieving over the death of Al-Baghdadi. Mohamed is the perfect man to every Muslim. Al-Baghdadi was a close second.
Infidel says
Yeah, after dumping her brother and her husband, she was looking forward to making more babies w/ ABaB, but alas! He was slain before she could get impregnated by him
warren raymond says
Here, have a good laugh:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/27/twitter-users-rip-wapos-religious-scholar-al-baghdadi-headline/
gravenimage says
Those are brilliant! Thanks for the link, Warren.
Lion heart says
If for example , we Canadian Christians originally from Iraq , ask Muslims and the leftists USEFUL IDIOTS about Al-Baghdadi’s reign of terror , they would say he misunderstood Islam and he hijacked it blah blah blah .. and if we say but he has a PhD in Islamic theology and yet he blew himself up because it’s Islamic imperative ( Quran 9:111 ) etc.. , they would say “ He is probably a Jewish agents ?? as Muslims used to say during the period between 2004-2007 after every Islamic terrorist attack in Iraq ! and there is a Arabic saying goes like this which applies to them “ The one that cause laughter is the most tragic disaster “ ?
شو عم تقول انت smh says
Quran 9:111 implies that you don’t get too attached to the life here or be worried about nothing and go fight for the cause of Allah, because he has guranteed you heaven for doing so. It has nothing to do with blowing up yourself wth .. Actually in Islam if you kill yourself like that you go to hell (see https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/242 )
And having a PhD in Islamic theology doesn’t mean nothing either, you have baghdadi, and you have others with the same PhD who are cringey apologetics, and other shit types of so called scholars. Having a PhD means you read and studied stuff, it doesn’t mean you are righteous and you represent Islam.
Naildriver says
Islam s directives have been put through a process to clarify meaning and provide priorities — with addressing contradictions and it’s called abrogation.
Islam is thus intractibly unchangeable in its call to devoted Sunni Muslims to be a Baghdadi and even if you are correct that his vest and consequent suicide as USsoldiers closed in isn’t supported by Islam Islam is still mankind’s and the USA’s worst enemy. Islam needs to be utterly destroyed and it’s devotees killed.
gravenimage says
+1
CogitoErgoSum says
Yes, he was an Islamic scholar. Yes, he was the real thing. Yes, he was vile.
rubiconcrest says
Islam is Islam. There is no moderate form. In this, perfectly Islamic man, we witnessed the unvarnished truth in all it’s horrific gore.
Norger says
Exactly.
“Religious scholars” like him are unlikely to misunderstand the religion which is the subject of their scholarly pursuits. Wiil the WaPo engage in an intellectually honest analysis of the potential implications for for global security when one of the top Islamic scholars in the world founds ISIS and attracts thousands if not millions of supporters? Nah.
WOT says
One of the top Islamic scholars in the world bruh? According to who bruh? are you crazy bruh? ISIS that was once a whole state controlling a significant piece of land, didn’t even have one known respected scholar supporting it, let alone being a part of it. Before ISIS, Abu Bakr al baghdadi was an unknown, unimpressive guy, he was just a quiet man that no one really cared about. (look at the quote from Ahmed Al-Dabash in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi#Character)
Angemon says
“SIS that was once a whole state controlling a significant piece of land, didn’t even have one known respected scholar supporting it”
Citation needed.
RichardL says
You are right and it is only the last part of the headline that makes it clear where the leftists stand. But a public debate about that is impossible. A doctorate in islamic studies is a scholar of sorts.
smoris says
The sad thing is his death won’t make a particle of difference. It is the ideology, not its “scholars” who are killing us and killing freedom. It is Islam. Not a dent has been made in that enemy today. Not a scratch. Islam will bring to the fore a new face to take Al-Baghdadi’s place. The war will continue. Unlike Napoleon or Hitler, who were the fount of a cult of personality, the cult of Islam is focused on a man dead for 14 centuries. Unlike Napoleon or Hitler, who really left little in the way of historical residue, Mohammed left a putrid cancer which has never diminished. It has periodically retrenched or receded only to gather force and wait for weakness in us. We have supplied that weakness. We see what that brings. Killing this guy won’t make a difference to anyone. They do not value human life so it is no loss to them. Osama bin Laden is gone. Who cares? Saddam Hussein is gone. Who cares? He will be replaced in a couple of days by the guy in waiting. No loss to them. No gain to us. If we want “gain” all we can do is isolate these nuts in their own countries. While Trump busies himself hunting down Al-Baghdadi millions of followers of Islam have come into our own country. Maybe hunting them down and returning them to their own homelands would be a better use of his time. And then keep them out of here. It is not the people, but the “religion” that is our enemy. It is not Al-Baghdadi but the “religion” he spreads. It is not the individual Muslims but the fact that their “religion” has as its primary tenet our destruction and conquest. That means they want to kill freedom. That means they have no right to be here. Spend more time protecting America and waste less on hunting down individual roaches. Best to just roach-proof our own home than range about looking for important roaches elsewhere.
Naildriver says
Well said!
Yes, Trump could have been doing us better by focusing upon keeping the hoards of Muslims out of the USA — but instead Trump has actually been part of the problem in bringing them in.
Greedy people simply have no sense of where the line is for treason.
This is sadly what our Congress should be saying is the reason to impeach – Islam is the USA’s enemy; and enabling this enemy is treason. But incredibly owing to being Socialism’s bedfellows they are even more in collusion and giving aid and comfort to Islam.
gravenimage says
Naildriver wrote:
Well said!
Yes, Trump could have been doing us better by focusing upon keeping the hoards of Muslims out of the USA — but instead Trump has actually been part of the problem in bringing them in.
………………..
Muslim immigration is down 90% under the President’s “Muslim ban”–and it would be down even further if he could have made is as comprehensive as he wanted to.
How is this his bringing Muslims in?
Mary Shelley-Weaver says
Bringing them in…….Where have you been? He has done all possible to KEEP them OUT!!!!!
Christopher Watson says
It’s hardly Trump’s fault if you’ve got a problem with muslims. Obummer let most of them in and your democrats and some republicans have been helping the socialists turn the US into a left-wing hell hole. Trump has had to fight judges, senators, the MSM, the Newspapers and all the TV stations. He hasn’t succeeded everywhere but he’s done rather well.If you want to see what could happen – just look north.
Naildriver says
As a contributor to this opinion page I sometime speak without looking at statistics, so a 90 percent reduction in Muslims entering is much better than I would have guessed.
Should you look at the big picture it’s later than you think though, kinda like the barn door– and that was the above post that I was praising s main point.
Certainly Trump will have my vote given all the other horrible candidates regarding all their vacuous or collusionist — and treasonable positions, regarding Muslim immigration.
I don’t fear terrorism nearly so much as this normalizing mentality that Islam is ok, and now part of our multicultural fabric. Eventually, the Right will find Islam as useful as the Left. Islam plays both ends against the middle. That’s why people need to be singled out and held accountable for treason — yes, lawfully killed as suggested by the US Constitution, for betraying our country! (Ugh. What am I implying, Graven?)
Islam is almost beyond being called this country’s enemy and Muslims don’t even have to kill people to protect its growth; and has managed to get our traitors to do its dirty work.
gravenimage says
Naildriver, I still think that Muslim immigration being down is a good thing. The right is generally not as clueless about Islam as is the left–although this is not an absolute. All too many Americans on both sides of the aisle want to think that Islam is benign.
Good luck on getting these people executed. I think it is better to educate people about the threat of Islam, rather than trying to have them killed.
Naildriver says
Speaking up against Islam puts a target on you and me both, Graven –and all who contribute to this famous anti-Islamic web site.
Even being anonymous is hardly protection — Did you see how easily the KSA found their enemies with hacking their true identities with software capabilities?
Robert can perhaps afford a body guard, and the FBI may well provide some protection for him now, even after almost causing his murder by terrorism.
Perhaps you have protection too, but let’s get real — Islam means to kill its enemies, (that would be us!); and, traitors, even at the FBI, are assisting them.
No Islamophobia here, just a realist, and I say, let the traitors wonder if they might too be a target in a, lawful, righteous way; for example, even as they grovel to Islam to not target them — as you may recall Hillary Clinton did in 2016 during a debate in arguing that to deny Islamic immigration would actually cause terrorism! Such people are traitors — perhaps the SCOTUS may say otherwise, particularly if Hillary had here appointments — but, I would hope the SCOTUS would do the right thing; so perhaps a Supreme Court Justice reads this and may speak up in defense of people exercising their right to free speech and our government’s failure to protect them.
So this is no small matter, or a matter for education — whole empires have risen and fallen in the time our dithering and our criminal, treasonousl politicians have had for education to learn of Islam’s enemy nature, yet they still betray us after a generation.
Dave Derryberry says
Actually that was Obama that built that!
Voicein dawind says
Graven image check your tds…obummer let that hoard of enemies in…are you awake?
gravenimage says
I said that Muslim immigration is way down under Trump–how does that contradict what you are saying, Voicein dawind?
But not all Muslim entered under Obama–some preceded him, and some few have come in afterwards.
gravenimage says
I’m glad Baghdadi is dead–and it seems he really is this time. But you are right–his being taken out will not end Jihad terror–it will not even end ISIS. The best we can hope for is that it will take the wind out of ther sails for a bit.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
He’s been killed six times before; he only has three lives left.
Don’t you find it ironic and fitting that he was run down by dogs? (I hope none of the dogs were injured in this raid.)
Jap says
The dogs are at the vets as we read this,,,getting a health check, inoculations for diseases and a spa treatment followed by a large steak dinner.
And this is why the creator gave us dogs as our best mates.
gravenimage says
One of the dogs *was* injured. But he has been patched up and is now back on active duty. So glad he is OK!
Jeff Rhodes says
Very wise comment, much appreciated. We have a long and troubled history with this sick cult of hatred, pain and death which has now infiltrated all our social and political levels, helping others to do the same and bribing, scaring and blackmailing our mentally weak and incompetent politicians left, right and middle, who are bribing, scaring and blackmailing the media companies, with the well known results. Then kindergardens, schools, colleges, universities, local authorities, ONGs … and so on, conquering our societies in small but continuous and seemingly irreversible steps. We are under heavy attack and most our defences are down and too many people refuse to acknowledge this fact, for different silly reasons.
whydidicometothisshitplace says
You put Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, in the same fucking category. You’re absolutely clueless. People who follow the same thing would get along or at least have some respect for eachother, each one of those 3 would like to assassinate the other two.. what the heck are you on?
Paddy O'Connor says
Like cancer. If the stem cells aren’t extirpated the cancer will grow again.
Islam is the ideological cancer of our time.
Trick_or_Treat says
Sounds like everybody at your Washington Post, from the editor down, have shit for brains.
Infidel says
Jeff Bozos is the only thing keeping it alive. W/ the proceeds from wrecking the retail industry in this country
Dale Davis says
That is why I call our “Lame stream media” by names like Washington Compost and New York Behind the Times and several others that are local
Westman says
The WaPo did a significant reveal of its real anti-US attitude. It is a travesty that the name of our first President who battled to create the nation, is dragged upon this muckraking, sludge-inventing, newspeak, newspaper. It does not deserve the cachet of Washington and should remove such from its official name.
Perhaps the MUCK-Post has forgotten that Baghdadi personally raped a US NGO worker. But then, perhaps that is close to the moral character of the Post’s editors who proclaimed Baghdadi to be “An Austere Religious Scholar”. Come to think of it, how many of our leftist journalism professors prey on the incoming college girls and set an example for the men going into journalism?
gravenimage says
Here’s the Washington Post, sneering at our having taken Al Baghdadi out:
“Three ways the Baghdadi raid undermines Trump’s chaotic policy”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/27/three-ways-baghdadi-raid-undermines-trump-chaotic-policy/
warren raymond says
This is hilarious:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/27/twitter-users-rip-wapos-religious-scholar-al-baghdadi-headline/
gravenimage says
I’ve read those–brilliant! Thanks again for that link, Warren.
rubiconcrest says
…. I thought ISIS was unIslamic? … and there are no other Islamic countries where blasphemy and apostasy are capital crimes. At least they are calling out this cleric for being true to his faith.
gravenimage says
Good point, rubiconcrest–if ISIS is un-Islamic, how is their leader acknowledged as a religious scholar?
Never expect consistency from leftists, though.
underbed cat says
Yes, like “cherry picking” the Quran…..from my experience still far too many who have not been curious to read said book, usually liberal, college educated but stopped after graduation to research or find authentic sources, to see who is deceiveing who, instead of listening to imams do their work to protect the doctrine or hide it, read what they read. From the educational prospective they may be recieving large sums of money to allow foreign students access and that would require they follow the hate speech narative, and not read a Quran. Or if they do to not inform others.
Funny how similiar al Furgrq leader Bagdadi and Daniel Pearls terrorist, El Sheik Jamaat Giliani look alike, both Pakistani, came from the land where OBS was found.
gravenimage says
Yes–many leftists resist reading the Qur’an–I’m sure many of them realize deep down that they would not like what they would find.
Infidel says
Logic, like Biology, is something that the Left loves waging a jihad against. The only Science that the Left worships like a religion is Meteorology – no matter how impossible it might be to predict random events in future that would help determine climate trends
Naildriver says
The Washington post was correct that Baghadadi was a good devotee to Islam — and, with this killing of Baghadadi the MS news was grudging of Trump’s news event as expected.
Obama, as I recall, seemingly almost gave OBL, that. scholar and devotee to Islam, a 21 gun salute when dumping him in the ocean.
Trump did fall short in connecting Islam in a more culpable way to this bag of crap.
rubiconcrest says
… agreed. What a great opportunity to point out how Islam as a whole institutionally teaches the same garbage even in the USA!
Yohanan says
The WPost got the message. The current header now reads:
>Obituaries: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48Obituaries: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, “austere religious scholar” at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48<
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-islamic-states-terrorist-in-chief-dies-at-48/2019/10/27/0d004abc-663d-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html
gravenimage says
“Dies at 48”–you’d think he had a terminal disease, or something, not that we took him out.
Ashley says
Exactly!
Guess Osama Bin Laden “passed away” on May 2, 2011. I wonder if it was from illness, an accident, or a broken heart?
The headline that the WP should have trotted out was “Muslim al-Baghdadi Blew Himself to Smithereens” because that is exactly what he did.
Don’t get me started with the “austere scholar” BS. The man was an “austere scholar” of depravity and evil.
Hardly an accomplishment.
Keys says
“Dies at 48”
This is hard-hitting, colorful journalism at its beaconing best.
And, let’s hope his family has been notified.
gravenimage says
Good posts, Ashley and Keys.
somehistory says
Well, he did know his religion. And he was “cold, unfeeling, harsh, unfriendly, …” And he certainly was “unadorned.” And ugly, and demonic, and evil, and filthy, and murderous, and uncaring, and….
one who advocated every other moslim follow in his dirty, filthy footprints…raping, kidnapping, burning, beheading, stabbing, torturing, …all in the name of satan’s beast, islam.
And now, just like the mass murderer, raper of children he worshipped, he no longer exists.
CogitoErgoSum says
He did a great job of emulating Muhammad. That’s for sure.
rubiconcrest says
+1000
Ade Fegan says
A real muhammadan muhammad would have been proud of
Non of this twisted, corrupted, perverted, “unicorn” islam
that many muslims in the West (apparently) follow
gravenimage says
Most of this in the West is just Taqiyya. Recall how many Muslims from the West flocked to the hideous Islamic State.
gravenimage says
Washington Post hails al-Baghdadi as “austere religious scholar”
…………………….
Just sickening. You’d think he was a hermit who spent all of this time in prayer, not a war lord who presided over the most horrific dystopia of our time, the Islamic State, which used little girls as sex slaves and crucified kids for snacking during Ramadan. Just disgusting.
Would the Washington Post call Hitler an ‘influential statesman’ if he committed suicide in his bunker after presiding over the Holocaust and the destruction of Western Europe today?
Angemon says
Washington Post, 2016: “It turns out many ISIS recruits don’t know much about Islam… the Islamic State “preys on this religious ignorance” of its foreign recruits, “allowing extremists to impose a brand of Islam constructed to suit its goal of maximum territorial expansion and carnage as soon as recruits come under its sway.””
Washington Post, 2019: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State“
rubiconcrest says
I guess that is kind of a correction 3 years late. Now they admit he’s Islamic and don’t think we’ll notice that they’ve changed their tune. Thanks to you Angemon and the 2016 version of the WP version of events.
Lew says
The squad will condem this U.S. action…mark my words… guaranteed
gravenimage says
Omar gave a boilerplate Tweet saying that Baghdadi was bad–Tlaib seems to be staying quiet about the whole thing.
DHazard says
The Washington Post is severely disappointed. They wanted failure, more terrorism, more dead people.
Why isn’t Donald Trump complying with their expectations? He must be way worse than Hitler.
Ren says
Only ignorant people believe islam is a religion of peace… or a religion for that matter.
Anna Yelena says
The Prince of Darkness is rejoicing. Another Cult of Mo has arrived to join the millions of his pals who have already arrived.
Mark Spahn (W says
What is blasphemy? A desktop dictionary says blasphemy is “profane or contemptuous speech, writing, or action concerning God or anything held as divine”. Thus in Islam it is impossible to blaspheme against Muhammad (pbuh), because to do so would mean to take him to be a god, which is contrary to the fundamental Islamic teaching that “there is no god but Allah”. To verify this, I consulted the Wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy , which says:
“Blasphemy in Islam is impious [pronounced only”IMP-ee-‘s”, says a dictionary, not “im-PY-‘s”] utterance or action concerning God, ‘Blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad and his companions (sabb al-rasul, sabb al-sahabah)'[2], insulting an angel or to deny the prophethood of one of the Islamic prophets.[3] The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy.”
This is not even a grammatical sentence (it’s a run-on sentence). Also, it seems to imply that it is possible to blaspheme against non-gods like the Prophet or an angel (e.g., “Jibril is a cave-lurking bully”, referring to Jibril’s wrestling waylaying of Muhammad upon their first meeting. Also, the word “admononish” is ambiguous: it means either “warn against” (admonish lying) or “urge or exhort” (admonish truth-telling).
Can somebody find a fatwa that defines “blasphemy” in a non-self-contradictory way?
libertyORdeath says
Definitely don’t expect to get accurate information from wikipedia
Bella says
Canadian news ctv says that Trump shouldn’t have spoken that way about him. Figures. They’re so far left and heavily financed by isis lover Trudeau.
WPM says
Trudeau will try to name rename a college university building in Canada after this Islamic terrorist ,he is busy trying to track his many widow wives and children down so he can import them to Canada as quickly as possible .
Jack Holan says
The ppl over at the WP have marbles for brains
D J says
It’s Islamic austerity Jim but not as we know it.
tgusa says
Religious scholar. Wait, what? Yesterday, leftists would declare that isis was not representative of islam. Today, the isis leader is a paragon of islamic values. It would be great if the left would make up their minds but sadly they don’t have minds to make up.
The western left mourns the loss of one of their greatest allies.Oh and President Trump is a big meanie for speaking about him that way.
Paul says
According to a retweet by Mr Spencer the operation was named after Kayla Mueller who was held hostage, raped and murdered by Al Baghdadi and his men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayla_Mueller#Death
Paul
TKF says
Big Daddy Baghdadi was an a-list no-goodnick and all around party-pooper, but he didn’t do one stinking thing his phony-baloney prophet didn’t do first….in spades! Jihadi freaks like Baghdadi didn’t hijack a peaceful religion from peaceful, tolerant Muslims…..it was the other way around. The peaceful Muslims are not following the true faith as preached by Mohammad. Baghdadi was. And he should know, because he had a freaking PHD in Islamic studies. That means he gave his religion a LOT of thought. A jihadi terrorist is simply an extremely devout Muslim who takes the violent commands in his holy-books literally. That means he takes all the abominable bull-crap in the Koran and the Surra and the Hadith seriously. I’m not telling anyone anything they don’t already know including the majority of Muslims who are too chicken to be Jihadis themselves but secretly (or overtly), support them completely.
ugghnotagain says
There are hundreds of thousands of people who have a freaking PhD in Islamic studies and they did none of what he did. That’s just a lame argument.
Some of those hundreds of thousands of scholars advocate Jihad, but they were all against Baghdadi.
This guy obviously had issues, no one who is really knowledgeable would just announce himself as a Caliph in that ridiculous and almost funny way. Scholars from all different schools of thought were all like “wtf is this guy doing?”. In the same way he misunderstood what is a Caliph and how you can be one, he misunderstood many other things.
Actually there is a very interesting thing called “Khawarij”.
see a bit of their description here https://sunnah.com/muslim/12/207 … https://sunnah.com/bukhari/88/16 …. https://sunnah.com/urn/504820
Comparing ISIS to those Khawarij is pretty interesting actually. They do some of the stuff that pious Muslims do, and they look pretty impressive while praying and reciting Quran and whatnot. But they are actually very far from what they should be. They also waged war against Muslims, which is another characteristic thing about the Khawarij.
Just read about this, it can make you actually red pilled, cuz now you act like you are but you’re not.
Angemon says
“There are hundreds of thousands of people who have a freaking PhD in Islamic studies and they did none of what he did. That’s just a lame argument”
If the implication is that they didn’t do so because their religion prohibits them, then you’re the one with the lame argument…
“Some of those hundreds of thousands of scholars advocate Jihad, but they were all against Baghdadi.”
On what grounds? For example, al-Zawahiri (IIRC) opposed Baghdadi’s declaration of the caliphate not on religious grounds but on the grounds that the Americans would crush them. The Taliban oppose ISIS not because they reject the notion of a caliphate but because they want to be at the seat. Same for Iran or al-qaeda.
“This guy obviously had issues, no one who is really knowledgeable would just announce himself as a Caliph”
Citation needed. He justified his claim on islamic arguments, and he convinced an untold number of people of his legitimacy. Certainly hundreds of thousand, if not millions or tens of million.
“Scholars from all different schools of thought were all like “wtf is this guy doing?”
Citation needed. Am I supposed to believe that all the muslims who, for example, joined the islamic state, helped those who did or waged jihad for the islamic state in Western soil have had no contact with islamic clerics who could explain them why al-baghdadi was wrong?…
“ In the same way he misunderstood what is a Caliph and how you can be one, he misunderstood many other things. ”
I keep hearing this excuse -“he misunderstood islam”. What I never hear is a refutation of his arguments grounded on islamic texts and historical precedents…
“They do some of the stuff that pious Muslims do”
Because they are.
“But they are actually very far from what they should be.”
And, of course, “what they should be” is never actually explained…
“They also waged war against Muslims”
Muslims whom they consider heretics and deviants – i.e., “not real muslims”. BTW, muslim-on-muslim violence is a common occurrence throughout history.
Linde Barrera says
I am sure that even my sixth grade students would have deducted that The Washington Post loves Islamic jihad and terror, based on that headline for that disgusting excuse for a human being, al-Baghdadi. ? And I conclude that the writer of that article loves jihad and terror as well. ?
Infidel says
Washington Post & SNL should switch staffs
gravenimage says
Nope–SNL gets things almost as wrong as does the Washington Post:
“SNL hits Trump for “bringing jobs back to ISIS” just as ISIS caliph al-Baghdadi is killed”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/10/snl-hits-trump-for-bringing-jobs-back-to-isis-just-as-isis-caliph-al-baghdadi-is-killed
Of course, this is just a comedy show, not what is supposed to be a respected news source.
eduardo odraude says
“Austere religious scholar” is accurate and politically incorrect. The guy was a Ph.D. Islam expert who adhered strictly (austerely) to Islam. Thus Bezos’ WP accidentally told the truth for a moment, namely that ISIS is a well-founded interpretation of Islamic primary texts.
infidel says
Meanwhile in India.. animal Muslim cleric is defying the edict of the North Eastern state of Assam that people should not have more than 2 children per family. He says Muslims will continue to breed more than 2. The evil intentions of this vile creature are clear.. breed to majority at the cost of the Hindu tax payer and then evict Hindus out of their own lands.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/muslims-continue-produce-children-despite-law-aiudf-chief-assam-govt-s-new-job-criteria-1613192-2019-10-27