New York Times celebrates Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, as a “paragon of compassion”

Haroon Moghul subtitles this cynical and deceptive piece of Islamic dawah “The prophet was an outsider. Just like me.” Poor little “Dwayne”! Moghul, a professional whiner who is obsessed with portraying himself and other Muslims as perpetual victims, so cowers in fear of “Islamophobic” coffee servers that he says his Starbucks name is not Haroon, but “Dwayne.” My Starbucks name, meanwhile, is “Haroon.”

Moghul is not really a victim, however; he’s a dishonest propagandist who traffics in malicious defamation, likening me to jihad mass murder mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki, blithely ignoring the inconvenient facts that I have never called for violence, approved of violence, exhorted anyone to commit terror acts, or assisted in the planning of any terror acts. He is flagrant in his dishonesty, discounting the reality of jihad terror while magnifying the fiction of “Islamophobia,” and frequently takes advantage of his audience’s ignorance about Islam to invert reality, portraying Muslims as victims of a cruel “Islamophobic” machine, instead dealing with the reality of non-Muslims threatened by the global jihad.

That this disingenuous huckster spreads his lies in the New York Times is an indication of how far the Times has fallen from any actual journalistic standards. Moghul says: “I’d memorized Muhammad’s life story in Sunday school, cramming facts, dates, lineages into my head as if I was preparing for an A.P. exam, a good Muslim like my parents wanted me to be.”

If that is true, then Moghul knows that what he has published in the New York Times is a beginning-to-end tissue of lies. But if it fools a few Infidels into complacency regarding the jihad threat, then it will have accomplished its purpose.

Much more below.

“Happy Birthday, Muhammad,” by Haroon Moghul, New York Times, November 20, 2018:

Tuesday is the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. It’s the 12th of Rabi al-Awwal, the day most Muslims believe he came into the world some 1,400 years ago….

I’d memorized Muhammad’s life story in Sunday school, cramming facts, dates, lineages into my head as if I was preparing for an A.P. exam, a good Muslim like my parents wanted me to be. But it had thus far been so much data — cold, abstract and inhuman.

In Medina I realized I actually believed all the stories about him. That he buried the least loved of his fellow Arabs with his own hands. That he put two of his fingers together and promised that he and the orphan would be that close in the life to come. That he so loved the vulnerable that God loved him in turn….

Here are a few statements attributed to Muhammad in hadiths that are considered reliable by Islamic scholars. They give a slightly different picture of the man:

“I have been made victorious through terror.” — Sahih Bukhari 4:52.220

“Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…. If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.” — Sahih Muslim 4294

“I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.” — Sahih Muslim 30

“May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” — Sahih Bukhari 1.8.427

“I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.” — Sahih Bukhari 3241; Sahih Muslim 2737

When asked about this, he explained: “I was shown Hell and I have never seen anything more terrifying than it. And I saw that the majority of its people are women.” They said, “Why, O Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Because of their ingratitude (kufr).” It was said, “Are they ungrateful to Allah?” He said, “They are ungrateful to their companions (husbands) and ungrateful for good treatment. If you are kind to one of them for a lifetime then she sees one (undesirable) thing in you, she will say, ‘I have never had anything good from you.’” — Sahih Bukhari 1052

And in another hadith: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) went out to the musalla (prayer place) on the day of Eid al-Adha or Eid al-Fitr. He passed by the women and said, ‘O women! Give charity, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.’ They asked, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allah?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religious commitment than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.’ The women asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is deficient in our intelligence and religious commitment?’ He said, ‘Is not the testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Is it not true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religious commitment.’” — Sahih Bukhari 304

Moghul doubtless knows about such passages and many more. But he doesn’t bother to reveal them to his New York Times audience, even to explain them away. Now, why is that?

Moghul continues:

He was an outsider like me. Being an orphan from age 6 in a very patrilineal, very patriarchal and very tribal society must have been a social death sentence. Muhammad could have reacted by seething with resentment and lashing out at the world. He could have turned on himself. Instead he became a paragon of compassion.

There are numerous passages in the hadith and sira literature in which this paragon of compassion orders the murders of people who have insulted him. These include Abu Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and the poetess Asma bint Marwan. Abu Afak was killed in his sleep, in response to Muhammad’s question, “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” Similarly, Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of his followers, Umayr ibn Adi, went to her house that night, where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq 674-676)

Then there was Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf. Muhammad asked: “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama answered, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).” Muhammad responded: “You may say it.” Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka’b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Sahih Bukhari 369)

When he first proclaimed prophecy, even his own uncle laughed at him, but he never laughed back. His followers were reviled, beaten and killed. He didn’t strike back. Rather he ran from one town to another, like Hagar at Paran, desperate to find his people refuge. Twelve years into his religious mission, in the year 622, he was forced to flee his native Mecca and arrived a refugee in Medina — but the people who chased him there didn’t leave him be. Not long after finding safe harbor, he was forced to take up arms, time and again, to defend his faith, his community, and himself.

In reality, the vast majority of battles that Muhammad fought in were offensive, and after his death, his followers, emulating him, attacked and conquered the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, Spain, and much of India with astonishing rapidity. None of this was defensive warfare. Just consider: Muhammad began waging violent jihad in Medina, one city of Arabia. By the time of his death he was master of all Arabia. That’s a most impressive defensive action! And likewise, when he is supposed to have died, in 632, the Muslims controlled only Arabia. By 100 years later, in 732, their empire stretched from Spain all across North Africa and the Middle East to Persia and India. They defended themselves all the way to conquering nearly half of the known world? Pull my other leg.

But even as he did, he remained dedicated to building a society that would provide the inclusion he (and his followers) had been deprived of….When terrorists struck New York and Washington in 2001 I was horrified, scared and bewildered. The Muhammad I revered bore no resemblance to the Muhammad they claimed. In their view, Muhammad was a conqueror first, a politician and a general second, and a man of faith last, and least.

9/11 was hardly the first act of violence committed by Muslims acting in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings. As I show in my book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, violent jihad has been a constant of Islamic history. If Moghul is to be believed, then Muslims for 1,400 years, everywhere Muslims have gone, have misunderstood Islam and outraged the memory of Muhammad. And this mass apostasy took place at the very top, as the violent jihad was led by the caliphs and other Muslim rulers who were, by their own accounts, endeavoring to emulate Muhammad and put his teachings into practice.

This is a gross misunderstanding of his life, and an inversion of the message he actually preached. When he had nowhere else to turn, when he couldn’t find anyone to protect his community, then — and only then — did he take up arms to defend his faith.

But the politics he attempted are instructive. In one of his first pronouncements in Medina, he pledged that the Muslim community would defend the native Jewish community from any of its enemies, and declared Medina to be one nation of two faiths, a profound and unusual gesture of pluralism and tolerance….

Moghul doesn’t tell you what happened next: Muhammad exiled two of the three Jewish tribes of Medina, and massacred the third. Then he went to the oasis of Khaybar, where the two Jewish tribes he exiled had gone from Medina, and massacred them. On his deathbed, as I quoted above, he vowed to expel all Jews, as well as Christians, from Arabia.

Haroon Moghul almost certainly knows that what I am writing here is all true. He will take no notice of this article, of course, and will hope that you won’t see it, because the question arises inevitably: what does Moghul make of the abundance of material, only some of which have I quoted above, found in canonical Islamic texts, that contradicts his picture of Muhammad? Why doesn’t he discuss this material and offer some explanation for it? Or is he just hoping that we don’t know about it, and that his vilification of those who point it out as “Islamophobes” will suffice for his readers to dismiss it?

Whatever the explanation, Haroon Moghul is a dissembler and propagandist of the most cynical type. And the New York Times is his eager and willing accomplice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *