Democrats in America and Islamist propagandists are residents of the same political mansion of agenda. No wonder then that an Islamist propagandist used the leftist propaganda outlet The Conversation to promote her religion in the wake of riots and race-baiting rhetoric employed to trigger race riots in America.
Yahoo News was all set to publish this Islamist promo titled “Islam’s anti-racist message from the 7th century still resonates today” by Asma Afsaruddin—credited as Professor of Islamic Studies and former Chairperson, Department of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures, Indiana University. The designation alone gives it away. But let’s look at her post.
Professor Afsaruddin attempted to praise Islam by referring to its prophet Muhammad’s last sermon wherein he allegedly declared racial equality. She tried to tie this to the current leftist narrative of black oppression or racial inequality in the United States—an attempt that falls flat soon as it is made.
First, she excludes the important details of slavery and inequality in Islam’s fundamental teachings and life in Muhammad’s time from her preachy post. For example, she doesn’t mention any verse from Koran or saying of Muhammad that slavery is unacceptable and not allowed in Islam. The reason is obvious: Islam allowed slavery in various forms, from direct slave trade to oppressive and discriminatory laws for women and the weak. Of course the most important part of story—that Muhammad himself was a slave-owner—is conveniently omitted from the story. His salve named Zayd ibn Harithah, which Muslim historians chose to call Muhammad’s “adopted son” to make the practice of slave-keeping sound better, was passed on to him from his first wife. Later in life, as Islamic history tells, Muhammad went on to marry the wife (Zaynab bint Jahsh) of this “adopted son”. The story behind that is disputed, just like much of Islam’s history itself.
Also, one of Muhammad’s dozen wives, Maria al-Qibtiyya, was actually a slave “gifted” to him by then Christian ruler of Alexandria, Egypt. There is even debate among historians as to whether she was given the status of a wife at all or just kept as slave girl. This is because Islam allowed men to have sex with slaves.
But none of this would be part of “The Conversation” because it shows actions that speak louder than words in Islamic history.
Professor Afsaruddin also didn’t bother to touch on why her prophet called for racial equality in his last sermon, which was near the end of his life, rather than to begin the message of Islam with condemnation of slavery and racial inequality. Her example of just a couple non-Arab, particularly of the black slave Bilal, is ridiculously simplistic. In the early days of Islam, Muhamamd and his friends surely wanted more exposure so “freeing” a slave by buying him (no pun intended) and putting him to Islamic agenda wasn’t freeing after all. It was promo work and the history of Islam doesn’t show how many blacks, particularly “freed” blacks, were candidates for the chair of caliph (leader of Muslim world after Muhammad’s death) or were even included in the Islamic council that elected the caliph.
Most importantly, the Islamist professor is deafeningly silent on the discriminatory laws of Islam against women. Since day 1 to date, Islam lets female children (daughters) inherit half of what their male siblings (brothers) would inherit of their parents’ legacy. In the court of law, Islam dictates that the testimony of two women equals that of one man for the same effect. A man is allowed four marriages at a time; a woman, only one. And she forgets, while living in America and benefitting from American dollars, that only in America a national war was fought to free the slaves – not the Arabs, or Asians, or Hindus, Muslims, or other ethnicities and faiths –all of whom allowed and practiced slavery.
Professor Afsaruddin’s story in The Conversation is lame Islamist propaganda that ranks 10/10 on Skepticle Scale and weighs nothing more than a lame attempt of religious promotion of her faith. While the disclaimer at the end of the story claims “non-affiliated” status, I’m very curious to see who actually funds Indiana University and its Department of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures.