Hiding Malik’s Face: To be or Not to be a Muslim — that is the Question

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke12/15/15
“You ain’t no Muslim, bruv!” As you may know, this statement was uttered by a bystander after a non-Muslim Muslim™ slit the throat of a man in the Leytonstone subway station in east London last weekend. It was, apparently, a logical spontaneous reaction because, as we all understand, a Muslim ceases to be a Muslim upon committing a terrorist act. It’s not yet known if the transformation turns him into a Christian, an atheist, a Hindu, a Jew or a Zoroastrian, but some magical de-Islamizing process occurs.

Speaking of which, the man shouting “You ain’t no Muslim, bruv!” ain’t no Muslim himself, contrary to initial suspicions. Rather, he’s a 39-year-old security guard from north London identified only as “John”; you know, the kind of guy Archie Bunker might call “a regula’ Englishman there.” But let us just call him No-Muslim-Jihadi John.

Now, John is apparently an authority on Islam. As such, the Obama administration might want to consult with him on a certain matter: the public display of San Bernardino terrorist Tashfeen Malik’s photograph. Note that while fellow terrorist Syed Farook’s photo was published almost immediately, his bride Malik’s didn’t appear for days. And according to ex-Muslim and author of The Devil We Don’t Know, Nonie Darwish, this was to appease Muslims.

Appearing on a special Monday edition of “The Glazov Gang” (video below), she says she can think of only one reason why Farook’s photo was immediately shown while Malik’s was withheld. As she put it, “[A]s a former Muslim myself, I know that Islamic law prohibits posting the photos of veiled Muslim women in public.” Darwish goes on to say she suspects “the [Obama] administration was pressured by Muslim groups to not show the female terrorist’s photo to the public.” And, of course, we know that Muslims and leftists were enraged when Malik’s photo finally was released.

But then Darwish made an excellent, excellent point. Said she, “There’s an obvious contradiction here; it’s a contradiction for moderate Muslims and even President Obama, who constantly claim, and constantly lecture us, that terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.”

Bingo. If Malik wasn’t really Muslim, she couldn’t have been a Muslim woman. And then the Islamic prohibition against showing veiled Muslim women’s images in public doesn’t apply, right? So why was everyone so upset?

Oh, I get it: when her picture was taken, she was still Muslim because the magical, de-Islamizing process induced via commission of a terrorist act hadn’t yet occurred. But when she pulled the trigger, her Muslim status went up in smoke along with some gunpowder.

As for No-Muslim-Jihadi John, Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch spoke about the surreal nature of his reaction, writing “The fact that this man [John] is a non-Muslim makes the whole scene grotesquely absurd. Here is a man lying on the ground bleeding from stab wounds, with his attacker standing right there with his bloody knife, and the first thing this onlooker can think to do is to say something to try to protect the image of Islam. As the last jihadi slits the last non-Muslim Briton’s throat, the victim will probably be gurgling out as his life slips away, “You ain’t no Muslim, bruv.”

So No-Muslim-Jihadi John appears to know as much about Islam as he does about grammar. Then again, maybe he’s more clever than we think. Perhaps in using his double-negative, he was really sending the message, “You are a Muslim, bruv!” This may explain why, fearing violence by suddenly transformed non-Muslim Muslims™, his identity isn’t being released.

It’s more likely, though, that he just wouldn’t want to be responsible for a man losing his faith.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (616 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Hiding Malik’s Face: To be or Not to be a Muslim — that is the Question

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    This point about Malik’s photograph is an excellent example of liberal doublethink. Usually this just involves going back and forth from one view to another as they find it convenient (“Oceania is at war with Eurasia; Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia”). But in this case, we really meet Orwell’s definition from 1984, in that liberals simultaneously believe that Malik is a Muslim (and thus shouldn’t have her photograph displayed in public) and also (claim to) believe that Malik was no Muslim at all, the religion of Submission being a religion of peace according to official declaration.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Note that while fellow terrorist Syed Farook’s photo was published almost immediately, his bride Malik’s didn’t appear for days.

    Perhaps the government was doing us a favor. That woman was what is generally called “butt-ugly”, and one look at her face disturbed my Wah. At least I was spared that mug for a couple of days.

    as we all understand, a Muslim ceases to be a Muslim upon committing a terrorist act.

    I can do not better than to repeat my previous post,

    “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Strength through Diversity!”

    I could also accept “Power through Pluralism”.

  3. Anniel says:

    Selwyn, I have been trying to understand the no photos posted in public with the many Islamic people I know. I have taken and received dozens of photos of Muslim women from many countries over many years. To my knowledge no one has ever objected to having their photos on public display when we have stayed at Ronald McDonald House.

    Was this perhaps a new CAIR rule used to prevent or slow down the tracking of that particular woman? The photo taken when she went through her visa check didn’t seem like she was trying to hide her face. I’m just a little puzzled.

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    Apparently ISIS really doesn’t like non-Muslims denying the religion of good Muslims (i.e., viciously violent jihadists), so now the security guard claims that they’re targeting him. Perhaps now he understands that the murderer really is a Muslim. (I commented on this at Jim Treacher’s blog on the Daily Caller, noting that he was another victim of political correctness, since he would never have said this if it hadn’t been for all those people mistranslating Islam as “peace” instead of “submission”.)

    And while I’m at it, Sunny Lohmann has a nice rebuttal to the “don’t say bad things about Islam or all those Religion of Peace types will join ISIS” idiocy. In particular, and I think very aptly, she compares this advice to telling a battered, abused wife that it’s her fault when her husband beats her up. You can find all 10 episodes of the Daily Sunny at houseofsunny.tv (and also presumably some of her earlier satires — she says she’s working on another).

Leave a Reply

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