The homicidal suicide-bombing by Salman Abedi in Manchester
UK at an Ariana Grande concert killed 22 (including seven children
under 18 -- and injured more than 100). As is quite typical
these day so-called Muslim moderates are coming forward to spout such terrorism
is not the “true” Islam. The reasoning of course is the propaganda that
Islam means peace. It is a 100% bogus lie that Islam is peace! Rather the
better translation for English is “submission”. Submission to what? The answer:
submission to the authority, superiority and hegemony of everything Islam.
The ONLY peace involved in submission is the acceptance of
the mind-washing ideology of Islam – OR ELSE! And the result against
those who refused submission: “This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.”
In this modern era, the Muslim apologists take advantage of
Leftist-Multiculturalist sympathies by using deceptive dialogue that provides
the appearance of the abhorrence of Islamic terrorism; however, the reality is
the use of twisted words that only the knowledgeable decipher to show the real
intentions of an Islamic ideology or agenda.
Mohammed
Shafiq
Ergo, in the wake of Islamic terrorism in British
Manchester, Robert Spencer dissects the deception of Ramadan Foundation Chief
Executive Mohammed Shafiq. (Just to view another source of Shafiq deception
go to Stephen Knight exposing Muslim duplicity
via an examination of Twitter dialogue.)
***************
Muslim spokesman Mohammed Shafiq blames UK government for
Manchester jihad massacre
MAY 26, 2017 5:49 AM
Posted
by Pamela Geller Editor-in-Chief
Published
on May 24, 2017
Mohammed Shafiq is the Chief
Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, which claims to be dedicated to combating
“extremism.” In this interview with Sky News presenter Dermot Murnaghan after
the Manchester jihad massacre, he does his best to equate jihad terrorist
killers with the forces who oppose them (which he smears as “far right”),
dissembles about Islamic teaching, and blames the Manchester attack on the
British government’s foreign policy.
“We’re
not going to let the terrorists succeed, and we’re not going to let the
far-right, also, come to our city and divide us.”
Note the moral equivalence:
there are the terrorists on one side, the “far-right” on the other, both
seeking to divide people, and here is good old Mohammed Shafiq smack in the
middle, the voice of sanity, the voice of reason, the voice of peace, the voice
of unity. Shafiq doesn’t mention one all-important fact, and Murnaghan doesn’t
challenge him on it: the “far-right” in Britain hasn’t killed anyone, isn’t
plotting to do so, and isn’t condoning any violence. The death toll from
Islamic jihad terrorism is 22 in Manchester, plus other violent attacks and
plots in Britain, as well as 30,000 murderous jihad attacks around the world
since 9/11. So Shafiq’s equivalence between the two is ridiculous. What is he
trying to do? He is trying to defame and discredit those who are calling
attention to the reality of jihad activity in Britain, and its motivating
ideology. If he succeeds, jihad activity will go on in Britain while everyone
is too afraid of being labeled “far-right” or “Islamophobic” to raise their
voices in protest. And that is exactly what is happening now.
“No
faith in this world encourages the brutal massacre of children as we saw Monday
night. No faith! And if that was what my faith was teaching, I wouldn’t want to
be in it, either.”
In reality, a hadith depicts
Muhammad reacting with savage indifference to the killing of children by the
Muslims: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the
Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and
children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are
from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4321)
These children were
collateral damage of the raid, just as they today might be collateral damage of
a jihad bombing such as the one we saw in Manchester Monday night— and Muhammad
allows for that.
“My
faith teaches compassion, and they’ve distorted our faith, we’ve gotta take
them on. But more importantly, as a community, we’ve still not done enough.
When we’ve got young people who are so disconnected from our society that the
moment we talk about what’s happening in Libya, in Syria, in regards to our
foreign policy, we get accused of being apologists for terrorism. Let’s have an
honest and open debate about these issues, and above all, let’s not let people
divide us.”
Shafiq says: “We’ve gotta
take them on, but more importantly” — and shifts into a critique of British
foreign policy. The subtext here is that the jihad attack was the fault of
British actions in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. If only the U.K. would adopt a
foreign policy that was to the liking of the global umma, then there wouldn’t
be jihad attacks such as the one in Manchester. If the British government stops
fighting against jihadis, then the jihadis will stop fighting them. This view
sounds reasonable and has many advocates inside Britain, but it ignores the
fact that the jihad imperative to “fight until religion is all for Allah”
(Qur’an 8:39) remains even against compliant infidels. It also ignores the fact
that Britain only got involved in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq because of jihad
attacks that predated those interventions and thus cannot reasonably be blamed
on them.
Murnaghan then asks Shafiq if
Muslims feel oppressed in some way, and so get the idea that they have to fight
back, even in extreme form? Shafiq agrees, and continues to blame jihad terror
upon British foreign policy:
“Yeah,
so you look at what happened in Libya, we went in, we bombed Libya, and then we
left, and ISIS was on the rise in Libya. The same in Afghanistan, the same in
Iraq. So I’m arguing that because of our military adventures in these
countries, we have allowed the terrorist narrative to take hold, we’ve allowed
people to be brainwashed, and then we have what we saw here on Monday. There’s
no justification –“
When Murnaghan asks Shafiq
what he says to Muslims who want to go to Syria to join the jihad, Shafiq ends
up blaming Sky News itself:
“Well,
first of all, I think we’ve gotta take on the narrative. So they’ve got in
their mindset this ideology which says you can use violence to make political
points, and Islam sanctions that. And we’ve gotta use the edicts that we’ve
seen from scholars like Tahir ul-Qadri or Sheikh Hamza Yusef, American, they’ve
produced real strong evidence from the Qur’an and the sayings of the prophet
Muhammad, peace be upon him, why terrorism is wrong. And that’s what we’ve got
to promote, do that, and grass roots, and actually give young people a voice
and give them a platform. Cause Dermot, no disrespect to you and Sky News, on
these panels, how often do we actually give young people a chance to speak up,
and talk about their issues?”
“Edicts that we’ve seen from
scholars like Tahir ul-Qadri or Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, American, they’ve produced
real strong evidence from the Qur’an and the sayings of the prophet Muhammad,
peace be upon him, why terrorism is wrong.” Murnaghan doesn’t ask him at that
point to explain what he means by “terrorism,” and that’s a shame, since all
too often in such contexts sly Muslim spokesmen are referring to the supposedly
“terrorist” actions of the U.K., the U.S., and Israel, and not to the actions
of Islamic jihadists.
Murnaghan should have asked
him to clarify that point especially since the reformers Shafiq mentions are
anything but. Tahir ul-Qadri issued a massive fatwa against terrorism that is
really just a gigantic exercise in deception: it never even mentions, much less
explains away, the Qur’an passages that jihadis use to justify violence and
terrorism. Moreover, Tahir ul-Qadri himself is the framer of Pakistan’s
blasphemy law that has been used to persecute countless Christians and other
non-Muslims. Some reformer! Hamza Yusuf is no better: he ridicules the idea of
Islamic moderation and said that the victims of the Charlie Hebdo jihad
massacre “knew what they were doing” — i.e., they had it coming once they
blasphemed Muhammad.
That Shafiq is also taken for
a moderate and given such a platform on Sky News and elsewhere is evidence of
confused and complacent, if not complicit, the media elites in the U.K. and all
over the West really are.
________________
Why Jihad Watch?
Why Jihad Watch? Because
non-Muslims in the West, as well as in India, China, Russia, and the world
over, are facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals
of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy their societies
and impose Islamic law upon them — and to commit violence to that end even
while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the
general rubric of jihad.
Jihad (Arabic for “struggle”)
is a central duty of every Muslim. Muslim theologians have spoken of many
things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from
critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to
non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a
constant of Islamic history and a central element of Islamic theology. Many
passages of the Qur’an and sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad are used by
jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major
Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of
jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is
available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.
