Daniel Pipes Has a Problem with the Son of Mary?
Haroon Moghul, who was recently interviewed by Garibaldi wrote an essay published in the Boston Review that reflected on the Muslim view of Jesus, aka the “Son of Mary.” It was an intriguing essay that pointed out that it is in respect to the person of Jesus that the three Abrahamic faith traditions significantly part ways (a point we’ll get to later). The essay mentions Jesus’ central role as a mighty Prophet of God, eschatological figure and crucial character of emulation for Islamic Sufism and more. I urge Loonwatchers to read the entire article.
One tantalizing episode that Moghul recounts is Prophet Muhammad’s taking of Mecca and demolition of the idols of pagan Arabia that were housed in the Ka’ba, excepting two portraits, one of Jesus and the other of Abraham:
For Muslims, Mecca is the holiest city, while Jerusalem comes third, after Medina. When Muhammad arrived in Mecca from Medina in the year 630, Mecca voluntarily surrendered to his superior army. Thus victorious, he cleansed the Ka’ba of all its idols. But he stopped his followers from touching two paintings: one of his ancestor Abraham, and the other of Jesus and Mary. Though it was lost over time, the painting of the virgin mother and her child remained there, inside the building toward which Muslims pray, for years.
I wonder if militant Salafists who in the past few months have demolished historic heritage sites in Mali have some sort of collective amnesia regarding the above tradition!
The reaction to Moghul’s article was overwhelmingly positive as one would expect, but there were a few of the usual Muslim haters who showed up, ranting and raving about evil Islam and Muslims.
One such comment was from Daniel Pipes, who wrote:
I am surprised by the Boston Review’s publication of this nonsensical article. It is filled with historical inaccuracies and tries to divide Christians and Jews. Shame on you Haroon Moghul and shame on you Boston Review!
— posted 12/26/2012 at 02:31 by Daniel Pipes
Is this renowned neo-Con Muslim hater Daniel Pipes? The language and tone is altogether consistent as is the lack of any sort of rebuttal based on facts.
Another commenter, Gene, hit it on the spot when when he wrote in reply to “Pipes”:
#17 What people share
I hope comment #3 is actually Pipes, by the way. The hysterical accusation of trying to divide Christians and Jews sounds like him. In particular, the knee-jerk defense of Jews (where none is called for), suspicion of the author’s motives, and assumption of bad faith are hallmarks of Pipes’s style. Either this is a spot-on parody or it must be Pipes, who is just sufficiently reality averse to read that ridiculous conclusion into this article. And I use the word “ridiculous” advisedly. That statement, and its putative author, are worthy of ridicule.
— posted 12/27/2012 at 16:58 by Gene
I couldn’t have said it better myself.