CNN Peddles Horse Shit In Garland Jihad, Sides With Islamists

May 5, 2015 – San Francisco, CA – – CNN International has published what strikes us as a pro-jihadist apologia regarding the recent attack on a Garland, Texas free speech event by two Muslim males, now conclusively tied to ISIS.

With a lead image depicting a heavily veiled Muslima holding a placard which reads “Blasphemy is not a human right,” one gets the impression that what will follow is going to be slanted, but even with that caveat taken into account the copy is so amazingly fawning that it’s crossed the line, far past dhimmi [acceptance of second-class citizenship by a conquered people] into the realm of pure da’wa [Islamic proselytization].

A few choice snippets:

“Violence over depictions of the Prophet Mohammed may mystify many non-Muslims, but it speaks to a central tenet of Islam: the worship of God alone.” [source, Why Images Of Mohammed Offend Muslims, CNN]

“In some ways, Islam was a reaction against Christianity, which early Muslims believed had been led astray by conceiving of Christ not as a man but as a God. They did not want the same thing to happen to Mohammed.” [source, ibid]

Let’s try to establish the facts of the matter which differ materially from CNN’s anti-Western, anti-Christian, bigoted stupidity.

Fact: there is nothing in the Qur’an which forbids depictions of Mohammed, nor is there generally a prohibition within the body of Islamic jurisprudence…until very recently. There is no “centrality” in dogma relating to this matter; images of Mohammed have been quite common throughout Muslim history which only makes sense given Mohammed’s looming omnipresence in Islam’s most sacred text.

But there is no reason to simply take our word for this assertion. Therefore we turn to Newsweek magazine, not generally regarded as a captive of “bigoted right-wing Islamophobes.”

“If we turn to Islamic law, there does not exist a single legal decree, or fatwa , in the historical corpus that explicitly and decisively prohibits figural imagery, including images of the Prophet. While more recent online fatwas can surely be found, the decree that comes closest to articulating this type of ban was published online in 2001 by the Taliban, as they set out to destroy the Buddhas of Bamiyan.” [source, Christiane Gruber, The Koran Does Not Forbid Images of the Prophet, Newsweek]

In case the reader might think we’re stacking the deck, consider NPR, which hardly has a reputation as a bastion of Muslim hatred:

“RATH: Earlier, I spoke with Reza Aslan, a religious scholar and the author of "No God But God: The Origins, Evolution, And Future Of Islam ." Reza, welcome to the show.

REZA ASLAN: Thanks for having me.

RATH: I've seen and heard conflicting things when it comes to Muslim sensibilities about depictions of Muhammad…

ASLAN: Well, there are no Koranic prohibitions against depictions of the Prophet Muhammad…” [source, Arun Rath interview, Depictions Of Muhammad Aren't Explicitly Forbidden, Says Scholar, NPR]

Since CNN’s piece is so mindlessly vapid, we aren’t going to waste any more time proving that it’s a transparently, pro-jihadist polemic.

We will however note that the piece showcases such absurd ignorance of the subject matter that it’s comfortably in first place as a nominee for the Horse Shit Journo Award of the year.

Congrats folks, bet your mothers are proud…

©2015 All rights reserved.