We have become accustomed to sloppy journalism on the part of the LA Times on account of their liberal slant and political correctness. The below interview of UCLA Professor Khaled Abou El-Fadl by Patt Morrison is just such an example. In the wake of the Paris attacks, ISIS, Boko Haram, and everything else, Morrison asked El Fadl to explain his interpretation of Islam. As expected, she got the standard talking points.
First of all, El Fadl has darkened the pages of Fousesquawk before. In the below piece taken from Campus Watch, El Fadl defends sharia law by attacking those convenient boogie men, the Islamophobes.
In the next posting taken from Frontpage Magazine, El Fadl receives an award from UCLA's virulently anti-Israel Center for Near Eastern Studies for being a "hero in the struggle against Islamophobia in the US"-or something like that.
The below posting taken from Creeping Sharia and Frontpage Magazine has a host of links regarding El Fadl including an allegation he contributed to the Holy Land Foundation, which was convicted in 2007 of diverting funds to Islamic terror groups.
I think you get the message. Fadl's favorite bugaboo is Islamophobes.
As for the interview itself, do you see how El Fadl lays much of the blame on France and its attitudes towards Muslims as "inferiors"? There is no acknowledgement of the crime, the riots, the no-go zones, the refusal to assimilate, the violence, the harassment and violence directed towards Jews. No, it is, as always, the fault of those Islamophobes.
And according to El Fadl, that leads to the next talking point. These young men who are carrying out all these horrors are disaffected kids, from broken homes, victims of prejudice. Never mind that Usama bin Laden came from a millionaire industrialist family. Never mind that the leader of ISIS has a PhD in Islamic Studies. Never mind the prestigious imams who stoke these fires. Never mind the governments that support terrorism. Islamic extremism cuts across the entire social economic spectrum.
And notice how El Fadl dances around the question of how to deal with those who insult the Prophet. There is no single answer? The idea of a death penalty for this offence really originated with "The Satanic Verses"?
Finally, this statement from El Fadl about the absence of verses in the Koran directing insulters of the Prophet to be killed. That may be true, but did Morrison ask him about apostates? Had she done that, no doubt she would have been told about the Meccan verses that allow for everyone to practice their own faith. But how about later verses during the Medina period? There is also this quote from the hadith (Hat tip Sheikhyermami):
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." — Bukhari 9.84.57 'baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu'
It is obvious that Morrison sought out someone who would tell her what she wanted to hear and what she (or her editors) wanted to print. Not only did she choose the wrong person, but she apparently failed to do sufficient homework.