Three Bystanders Shot in Broad Daylight in Times Square by a Man Named Farrakhan Muhammad By Robert Spencer
Just before five o’clock on Saturday afternoon in Times Square, a man began firing randomly into the crowd, injuring three people, including a four-year-old girl. The “white supremacy is the biggest threat to our nation and we must have gun control” propaganda mill couldn’t even start its wheels turning before the perpetrator was identified as a 31-year-old illegal CD peddler and possible drug dealer Farrakhan Muhammad, who was still at large as of Monday afternoon.
The cops thought they had nabbed the shooter when they zeroed in on a man who matched the description of the man whose image from security cameras had been circulated, but he told them he was actually the shooter’s brother, and gave them the name of the perp. It remains unclear how the NYPD determined that they weren’t really talking with the shooter himself but instead bought his story that his brother did it.
In any case, the brother told the cops that Farrakhan Muhammad hadn’t intended to shoot random people; Farrakhan had actually been aiming at his brother, who was standing in the crowd, but he was a poor shot.
That may really be what happened, but I also can’t help but notice that Farrakhan Muhammad has a very interesting name. He appears to be named after one man who has called for 10,000 volunteers to stalk and kill white people, and after another who is generally considered to be the author of a book that three times exhorts people to “kill them wherever you find them” (Qur’an 2:191, 4:89, cf. 9:5). Might Farrakhan Muhammad’s ideology and worldview have had anything to do with these shootings, or were they all about his being angry with his brother, as has been reported?
Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe Farrakhan Muhammad is a born-again Christian or an avowed pacifist who just lost his temper. Nonetheless, his name in connection with his act does raise eyebrows. After all, the Islamic State (ISIS) and al-Qaeda have repeatedly called for random jihad attacks on individuals in the U.S. and Europe of precisely the kind that Farrakhan Muhammad committed on Saturday.
A more salient question is, “If Farrakhan Muhammad was religiously or ideologically motivated, will we ever find out?” The establishment media is so intent on pushing its narrative at the expense of reality that the answer to the last question is most likely “no.” It is astonishing how swiftly the propaganda organs that we call the media drop a story when it doesn’t fit the version of reality they want us all to swallow. How much have you heard lately about the Boulder, Colo., supermarket shooter Ahmad Al Issa, who was identified as a white supremacist by numerous leftist “journalists” on Twitter before his name was released? After the name was released, the story sank without a trace.
Meanwhile, New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio has his own narrative to peddle, and he didn’t hesitate to do so when speaking to the assembled media propagandists about Farrakhan Muhammad’s shooting: “Too many guns available to too many people, and that needs policing solutions and community solutions. But it also needs a change in Washington. We need better laws to stop the flow of guns in this country.”
That’s it, Bill. Better laws. If only someone had thought of that before! The Indian news outlet MEA World Wide noted, however, that it is “unclear how Muhammad ended up with a gun, given that New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.” Could it be possible that Farrakhan Muhammad, a man who appears to live on the edges of the law already, obtained the gun illegally? It’s not only possible; it’s likely. In that case, will more laws prevent people like Farrakhan Muhammad from obtaining guns?
The answer to that is obvious. But de Blasio has already made it abundantly clear that he doesn’t really care about people such as Farrakhan Muhammad shooting up Times Square. It’s law-abiding, taxpaying citizens that he wants to make sure are disarmed, so that they have no way to resist the steady, inexorable advance of the wealth-redistributing totalitarian state of his dreams.
With all these agendas at play, it is unlikely that we will ever get the full story of what motivated Farrakhan Muhammad, and learn whether or not he was actually influenced by his two illustrious namesakes. We can only hope that he didn’t fool the cops with the “my brother did it” story and slip away, never to be seen again. On the other hand, if he is never seen again, that would be just fine. The ongoing problem is that there are so many others like him.
Comments are closed.
