02-19-2019 07:26:59 AM -0800
02-18-2019 09:36:51 AM -0800
02-18-2019 07:35:39 AM -0800
02-17-2019 12:39:26 PM -0800
02-17-2019 08:18:34 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

Why Would the Washington Post Hire Someone Like Jamal Khashoggi?

The Washington Post is indignant that “hard-line Republicans and conservative commentators are mounting a whispering campaign against Jamal Khashoggi,” supposedly in order to “protect President Trump from criticism of his handling of the dissident journalist’s alleged murder by operatives of Saudi Arabia.”

The Post hits these “hardliners” for highlighting Khashoggi’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and claims that “while Khashoggi was once sympathetic to Islamist movements, he moved toward a more liberal, secular point of view.”

In reality, Khashoggi was the real hardliner, supporting jihad violence and Sharia right up to the time of his murder -- even in his recent Post columns. This raises questions about why the paper hired him as a columnist in the first place.

As recently as August 28, 2018, Khashoggi wrote in the Post:

The United States’s aversion to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is more apparent in the current Trump administration, is the root of a predicament across the entire Arab world. The eradication of the Muslim Brotherhood is nothing less than an abolition of democracy and a guarantee that Arabs will continue living under authoritarian and corrupt regimes.

While positing the Muslim Brotherhood as the standard-bearer of democracy in the Arab world, Khashoggi did not deny that its aspiration is to impose Sharia wherever it can. He wrote: “There can be no political reform and democracy in any Arab country without accepting that political Islam is a part of it.” And he warned: “It is wrong to dwell on political Islam, conservatism and identity issues when the choice is between having a free society tolerant of all viewpoints and having an oppressive regime.”

Would Muslim Brotherhood rule really result in a “free society tolerant of all viewpoints”? During the Egyptian presidential campaign of 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood Freedom and Justice Party candidate Mohamed Morsi (who was elected) declared:

The Qur’an is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal …

Today we can establish Sharia law because our nation will acquire well-being only with Islam and Sharia. The Muslim Brothers and the Freedom and Justice Party will be the conductors of these goals.

“Jihad is our path.” As I show in great detail in my book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, throughout 1,400 years of Islamic history, Muslims pursuing jihad as their path have been the cause of unfathomable levels of misery and suffering for non-Muslims whose sole crime was to believe in the wrong religion. Hardly a sound basis for a “free society tolerant of all viewpoints.”

Sharia law, once established, allows for the beating of disobedient women (Qur’an 4:34), the devaluation of women’s testimony (Qur’an 2:282), the devaluation of women’s inheritance rights (Qur’an 4:3), the taking of sex slaves (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, and 70:30), the death penalty for leaving Islam (Qur’an 4:89), and much more that hardly provides for a “free society tolerant of all viewpoints.”