The Washington Post has now changed this headline, apparently after receiving torrents of ridicule for it, but consider this: imagine if a prominent foe of jihad terror died, and the Washington Post was writing about his death. Imagine that this individual had never called for or condoned any violence, much less terrorism, and had stood all his life for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. And he wrote about how Islamic jihadis used the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and oppression. Do you think the Washington Post would headline his obituary in such a respectful manner?

Of course they wouldn’t. They would headline their story, “Far-Right Islamophobic Extremist Dies” or some such. If such a person were murdered, they would suggest in their story that he brought it on himself with his “extremist” rhetoric.

But al-Baghdadi, a mass murderer, enslaver of Infidel women, villain of history? An “austere religious scholar.” That’s where we are today.

Also, it’s likely that the Post’s propaganda masters were unhappy with this headline for implying a negative view of Islam. Al-Baghdadi, a twister and hijacker of the true, peaceful Islam, a “religious scholar”? Actually, it was accurate: he had a PhD in Islamic theology. But that fact doesn’t fit the narrative, and so must be deep-sixed.