You have to understand what the root cause of radicalisation is in the Muslim community. Here’s the maths….
British Society is increasingly intolerant of Islam, that intolerance is being fostered by a sensationalist media that fuels prejudice, the intolerance and attacks on Muslims leads them to become angry, alienated and marginalised, under such a siege they understandably feel the need to fight back and defend their prophet and their religion against these Islamophobic attacks.
Only its not true. It’s the BBC narrative. It’s the Muslim community’s narrative, it’s the radical’s narrative.
But it’s not true.
The BBC is charged with ‘sustaining citizenship and civil society’ by its Charter and it has decided that in order to do that it must lie to its audience. Not just turn a blind eye to the truth about Islamic radicalisation but to actively work to suppress the truth, to maintain a fiction that Islam is the religion of peace, love and tolerance. They do this because they have a belief that to allow the truth to be told would see the Muslim community and Islam come under such extreme scrutiny that it would expose it irrefutably as an ideology that is incompatible with a Western, secular, liberal, democratic and humane society.
And then what?
So instead the BBC has decided that a bit of ‘collateral damage’ is acceptable…the BBC has decided that in order to maintain that fiction about Islam it is willing to sacrifice, not just that very precious liberal, free, democratic society that is increasingly the victim of creeping Islamisation, but it is also prepared to see dead bodies, non-Muslim ones, in the streets as the necessary murders that are the price to be paid for ‘peace’.
Dramatic stuff, but true.
There is a war being fought and it’s not just with guns, bullets and bombs. The Media, far from being prejudiced against Muslims, is the weapon of choice for those who seek to make Islam the dominant religion and political force in Britain, and the BBC is at the forefront of the charge. And, this is the important thing to note, those who are ‘fighting’ this media war are not the obvious ‘radicals like Anjem Choudray, they come dressed in western suits and talk of reform and tolerance but always blame Muslim ‘anger’ on British society on that phantom menace, ‘Islamophobia’. Of course what is even more frighetening is that these men have not just managed to position themselves as authorities on questions of Islam, its place in Western Society and ‘radicalisation’, as Media spokesmen of choice but have also inveigled their way into the heart of Government advising it on matters of religion and radicalisation.
For instance Islamist Tariq Ramadan sits on the Foreign Office Advisory Group on freedom of religion or belief which is intended to ‘advise FCO Ministers and staff on how to build on the active approach they already take to promoting and protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief worldwide.’
Ramadan’s boss was Baroness Warsi whose credentials are also highly questionable in that nearly everything she does and says seems to support the Islamist outlook….the most obvious of which was her belief that Israel should be disarmed and terrorist group Hamas armed.
Warsi is well known….just days ago Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph wrote this article denouncing her and the government’s foolish policies, Islamic ‘radicals’ at the heart of Whitehall, and in which he noted that ‘Baroness Warsi gave official roles to people with links to Islamist groups’. She was also an outspoken critic of the anti-radicalisation ‘Prevent’ project and supporter of the Islamist student organisation Fosis.
Gilligan says..
Entryism, the favourite tactic of the 1980s’ Militant Tendency, is when a political party or institution is infiltrated by groups with a radically different agenda. Since Militant’s Trotskyites were expelled from the Labour Party, the word has rather fallen out of fashion.
But now, according to one Muslim leader, Islamic radicals are practising entryism of their own — into the heart of Whitehall – courtesy of a woman who was until recently a government minister.
Baroness Warsi then, a very controversial person with a highly dubious reputation, and yet another ‘goto’ spokesperson for the BBC on issues of Islam in the UK. An example of the dangers in employing these ‘radicals’ as government advisers is this from Jihadwatch…Sweden’s “Islamophobia” expert joins the Islamic State.
Despite Gilligan’s article just a few days ago the BBC chose to ask Warsi for her opinions (08:10) about how the Muslim community in Britain feel about their place in Society based on a BBC poll which, part of its on ‘war on Public (false) perceptions about Islam’, which the BBC trumpeted as a glowing testimony for Muslim attitudes in Britain claiming…Most British Muslims ‘oppose Muhammad cartoons reprisals’
At no time was she asked about the allegations made by Gilligan which you might think the BBC’s premier current affairs programme, with its elite interviewers in the saddle, might have broached. Instead we had Justin Webb doing an imitation of an over-ebullient Spaniel about to go out on a walk…Warsi threw him a few balls which he eagerly chased, enjoying the game immensely, rushing back to the mistress for her to throw him some more. Webb failed to challenge Warsi at all on her claims and bought into her narrative so much that he even started to add his own derogatory comments about other faiths being as bad as Islam in their extremism. Even Warsi had to bring him to heel on that one.
Before she came on we heard a report from one Muslim community that in essence, as laid out above, blamed the rise of radicalisation on British, non-Muslim society, which we are assured, has attacked and marginalised Muslims egged on by an Islamophobic Press.
However one message to take away was that, yes they were extremists, extreme in their love for their prophet and for their religion. Curiously the BBC didn’t think that an important factor in any Islamist radicalisation…because of course, as we heard, the ‘radicals’ weren’t real Muslims.
Warsi was able to articulate the same old prejudices and blame anyone but Muslims and their religion for the dangerous situation we find ourselves in. She claims there is no evidence that can indicate why Muslims become radicalised and that of course 27% of Muslims may support killing people for drawing Muhammed but she explained, you have to look at their reasoning behind such decisions before you denounce them. In other words she too thinks the Charlie Hebdo killings were justifiable….and an interesting turn of phrase from her…that it was unfortunate that Charlie Hebdo led to the death of ‘civilians’…..is she saying other, non-civilian, targets would have been acceptable? And again Warsi blamed the Media for whipping up anti-Islam prejudices.
The BBC is not alone in excusing Muslim terrorism, the Guardian here giving a perfect example of the thinking that ‘understands’, and thereby justifies, murder….
The Guardian tries to erase Islam from the picture and chooses to look for other causes for radicalisation saying..
What the three had in common was growing up on the margins of French society
The article is a very long one, nearly the whole body of the text builds on the narrative of the alientated, disenfranchised and marginalised young men driven to radicalisation by such factors. Only at the very last paragraph do we get a clue that that is rubbish…
“People say simply discrimination plus social malaise equals terrorism, that’s not true.”
Of the families she had recently spoken to she had seen children of educated parents, including doctors, or youngsters leaving medical school, and many from non-Muslim backgrounds. The profiles of jihadis radicalised and self-radicalised in France were increasingly complex and nuanced.
But even that is not true…for it has long been known that the majority of those radicalised came from the ranks of the educated and well-to-do….not marginalised, not ignorant and not poor….what they do all have in common is being Muslim.
Dan Hodges in the Telegraph has a completely different take on the BBC poll….
It’s a reassuring headline. It’s also wrong.
Below the report is an article by BBC Today program reporter Sima Kotecha. It begins: “Islam is a religion of peace and love – not violence.”
That statement – and those sentiments – are simply not compatible with the BBC’s own research.
We are going to have to start to reassess what we mean by “moderate Islam”.
The BBC is wrong. Many Muslims have sympathy with the Charlie Hebdo killings. Far too many.
The BBC is of course spinning its poll for reasons of maintaining ‘civil society and social cohesion’ but other research by the BBC, not really intended for domestic consumption, went out on the World Service and was not given a high profile in the UK….
Human toll
The findings are both important and disturbing.
In the course of November, jihadists carried out 664 attacks, killing 5,042 people – many more than, for instance, the number of people who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks.
So the report tells us that its findings are ‘both important and disturbing’ and yet the BBC all but ignores them. It fails utterly to challenge Warsi’s narrative about Muslims being the victims of huge discrimination in Britain when we know that the UK is one of the best places in the world for Msulims to live and practise their faith and the BBC fails to press her on these figures that paint a completely different picture of what the cause of radicalisation and its effects are.
The report goes onto outline the future….
While comparisons to earlier periods are difficult, the overall picture is that of an increasingly ambitious, complex, sophisticated and far-reaching [Islamist] movement.
The project tells the story of a movement in the middle of a profound transformation – one whose final outcome is impossible to predict.
Our immediate focus, however, was the terrible human cost: with, on average, more than 20 attacks and nearly 170 deaths per day, jihadist groups destroy countless lives – most of them Muslim – in the name of an ideology that the vast majority of Muslims reject.
If anything, this highlights the movement’s scale and ambition, but also the long-term political, social, ideological, and military commitment that will be needed to counter it.
Note that last line…’the long-term political, social, ideological, and military commitment that will be needed to counter’ Islamic extremism.
The BBC’s idea of countering Islamic extemism is to ignore it, or if forced to admit it occurs, then blame it on British society…anything but the truth….which of course is a hard to come by commodity when the BBC employs the likes of Mehdi Hasan, Tariq Ramadan and Baroness Warsi as spokespersons on Islam.
Until the BBC changes that narrative about foreign policy, ancient and modern, and its continual acceptance of Muslim grievances as justification for terror, and has an honest exploration of the real causes of radicalisation, then there can be no solution. If you don’t know what causes a problem, or don’t admit it, you aren’t going to solve it.
As said, the BBC is all too ready to accept the occasional terrorist attack on the streets of Britain if it means the Muslim community and Islam are not subject to intense and genuinely critical scrutiny that would raise some very awkward questions once people started to realise the truth about Islam and what it teaches its followers and how that plays into the real narrative about radicalisation and Jihad.
According to the BBC’s narrative Muhammed would not be a Muslim as his whirlwind and extremely violent campaign across the Middle East to impose Islam upon the land and its peoples has remarkable similarities to the ISIS blitz….and as we know, ISIS are not ‘real Muslims’.
