Eine Kleine Nichtmusik

Witty and pertinent observations on matters of great significance OR Incoherent jottings on total irrelevancies OR Something else altogether OR All of the above

Saturday, February 23, 2013

That old blood libel got me in its spell, that old blood libel that we know so well

Walid Shoebat, fake ex-terrorist, and his son (who doesn't even pretend to have done anything with his life except be a hate preacher) have identified a sad omission in the Islamophobic rubbish being pumped out by the hate industry. Nobody has tried to suggest that Muslims are cannibals. Well, hardly anyone: Uncle Jimmy aka Blair Supporter gave it a go, and a racist in the Lancashire police tried faking "evidence" for it, but nobody with the kind of bottomless funding today's professional Islamophobes can command.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and Moonbat & Shoebomber abhor a missed money-making scam. Here is their blood libel.

Now I don't suppose one Islamophobe in ten thousand will read any further than the headline: they'll see that one of the darlings of the Islamophobia industry says it, someone who gets interviewed on Fox News, so it must be true. Well, the first part of their "evidence" is a video clip of an un-named "Egyptian scholar" reading out quotations from an un-named book which we are told is part of Egypt's high school curriculum. The video comes from the Youtube channel (Eretz Zen channel) which purportedly originates with a Syrian supporter of the Assad regime and hater of Islam (so a good well-balanced source then). The only references to al-Azhar university and cannibalism anywhere on the web are links to this video.

Then the Bombbats quote an "Islamic authority". First they cite a lengthy passage which proves that the eating of human flesh, like any other foodstuff forbidden to Muslims, is permitted if there is no other way to avoid starving to death. You can eat a dead man if the alternative is joining him. Nowhere in the text they cite does it suggest any other context for cannibalism, and nowhere does it condone killing of any kind. But then they cite a dissenting opinion, one "al-Shafie" whom they say is considered to be the founder of Islamic jurisprudence. In the text they cite he is referred to as "el-Shefie", but it matters not which spelling you use, there are no references to this supposed huge authority anywhere on the web except in the article they are quoting from. In other words, he's a fake, introduced with the intention of proving black to be white and a Qu'ranic prohibition on the eating of human flesh unless you're dying of hunger to be an exhortation to kill and eat infidels.

So here's the technique, kiddies. You get a government-funded TV channel to film a fake "interview" with a fake "Islamic scholar" in which he denounces a fake "textbook" as advocating the killing and eating of non-Muslims. You make sure none of the partipants' names appears anywhere, and neither does the title of the "textbook". Then you fake a learned article on the passage in the Qu'ran which qualifies the ban on the eating of human flesh (or anything else which simply died, such as roadkill) by allowing it if it's the only way to stay alive. You then add a fake commentary, from another fake scholar, on this genuine Qu'ranic passage to the effect that what it really means is that enemy fighters or adulterers may be killed and eaten. Finally, you find some random blogger who comments that of course all Muslims view all non-Muslims as enemy fighters and adulterers. This blogger, called "Nahed", doesn't even bother with fake "Islamic scholar" credentials. Instead he says "I challenge any person who denies what I said, as by the grace of God, I have all the references which I got this information from." No such references are provided, of course. We just have to accept that they exist and are genuine. Just like all the other fakes dragged in as "evidence" by the Moontwats.

After that, all you have to do is keep on pumping out videos about Muslim cannibalism for your paid shills to distribute. You don't need to provide any evidence, because you've already "proved" it.

In exactly the same way, nobody bothered to fact-check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, because trustworthy people vouched for them. After that, all you had to do to "prove" that Jews murdered Christian babies and drank their blood was to cite the Protocols. Job done.

Of course, nobody would be stupid enough to fall for that kind of vile lie nowadays, would they?


Post a Comment

<< Home