by Seymour Clare
Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.
– Jonathan Swift
This is a complex subject and there are numerous examples but I will stick mostly to one event, as it is a microcosm of some of the main problems faced, not just by our nation but the West as a whole.
A little background first, in 2007 the existence of an EU lexicon of banned terms is said to include ‘jihad’, ‘Islamic’ and ‘fundamentalist’:
From the Daily Telegraph:
Don’t confuse terrorism with Islam, says EU
This strategy of not naming a thing, in this case, is not devised because these things aren’t connected – instead it is born out of a desire to control what is said and shape the wider narrative. Just how much truth is being left out? What happens to those who point out omitted details? After the cold-blooded murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby, we saw a variety of stock governmental and media responses. These could be summed up as –
Contrasting statements were made by Lord Pearson, David Cameron, Khalid Mahmood, Yasmin Qureshi, Nick Clegg and of course Michael Adebolajo. Lord Pearson asked were the Lords aware Fusilier Rigby’s murderers:
‘quoted 22 verses of the Qur’an to justify their atrocity? Therefore, is the prime minister accurate or helpful when he describes it as a betrayal of Islam? Since the vast majority of Muslims are our peace-loving friends, should we not encourage them to address the violence in the Qur’an?’
Mahmood, while condemning the ‘atrocious attack’ told the Guardian, among other things:
‘Obviously he hasn’t read the Qur’an. Islam is about submission to the Almighty. It is not about war against anybody else…..This is not tolerable (Lord Pearson’s questions) and it should not be tolerated at all.’
‘These are lies. Trying to say this comes from some text in the Qur’an or there is some justification in the religion – it isn’t there. To suggest that Muslims should be apologising and somehow having to take responsibility for the actions of a handful of people is absolutely diabolical.’
From The Guardian:
Ex-Ukip leader condemned for Qur’an comments over Lee Rigby murder
If it was an isolated incident, perhaps this would seem reasonable, if Adebolajo was truly a self-radicalised, ‘lone wolf’ (another persistent element of the RoP narrative) but there’s been tens of thousands of jihadist attacks since 9/11, Muslims themselves are more often than not, the victims of violent Salafist-jihadis (following the example of their prophet) who cite the same verses, express the same sentiment and ideology as Adebolajo, who also claimed his motivation was, British troops were killing Muslims.
Similar notions underpinned the notorious incident in Fort Hood, which the Obama administration labelled ‘workplace violence’, but of which Anwar al-Awlaki wrote:
‘Nidal Hasan is a hero, the fact that fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed….has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims.’
Michael Adebolajo said:
‘But we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us.’
From Jihad Watch:
Full video and transcript of UK jihad murderer: “We are forced by the Qur’an”
So who is lying in all of this? Who is too scared to tell the truth? Who is omitting salient details because of political correctness? Or to obscure their approval if not of the methods, the reasoning behind it?
It is after all Muslim reformers who are often first in jihadis’ sights. De-facto Sharia blasphemy laws are already in effect in much of Europe, satirise or criticise Islam’s prophet and one must fear for their safety. Community pressures on Muslims, to avoid any negativity about their faith can be intense – which means getting an unbiased discussion is almost impossible.
Regardless of the reasons, in the end, the religion of peace canard helps no-one but the Islamists and Salafist-jihadis. Islamists can hide in plain sight and violent jihadis, have the source of their motivations obfuscated and excused. Instead we are told it is actually the potential right-wing backlash, that is the real problem – not the tens of thousands of attacks as part of an international Islamofascist movement.
The other side of an official narrative is what happens to people, who point out omitted details, Lord Pearson was predictably called an Islamophobe. Adebolajo also cited the 9 sura of the Koran on camera (it featured in some of the first news reports but vanished thereafter) it is unequivocal- and extremely difficult to extract any other meaning, than one of violent exhortation.
Nick Clegg however, quoted the Koran to show how Adebolajo was in fact, contradicting its teachings – it is here much is omitted. Clegg from verse 5:32:
‘If anyone kills a human being it shall be as though he killed all mankind whereas if anyone saves a life it shall be as though he saved the whole of mankind.’
From the BBC:
Clegg: Woolwich suspects ‘perverted’ religion of peace
That sounds quite clear until one reads 5:33, which puts that statement in context:
‘Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.’
Ibn Warraq sums it up:
‘The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews.’
From Jihad Watch:
Obama: “Islam prohibits terrorism, for the Qur’an says whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind”
Does Nick Clegg know this ? Or is he so arrogant to make an assumption and repeat the official narrative, without checking beforehand? Like the members of the Dutch liberal establishment, who sought to prosecute Geert Wilders. The scholar of Islam, Hans Jansen, believed he was asked to testify because the court:
‘could not imagine that the things Geert Wilders claimed were in the Koran were actually in the Koran.’
From The Weekly Standard:
Pretentiousness Kills – Lessons from the corrupt prosecution of Geert Wilders
While the trial mentioned above collapsed, Geert Wilders was told in another trial, that he could not:
‘defend himself by arguing his comments are true.’
From Jihad Watch:
“No matter whether Wilders’ publications are true or not, this does not mean that he can express those as facts”
Just let that sink in for a minute – the truth is no defence.
One would think if they didn’t know then they do now- and one has to think many other European MPs and journalists, would have taken the time to look through, at least some of the Islamic scripture thousands and thousands of jihadist cite. What Al-Qaeda, ISIS, al Shabab, al Nusra, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban and a host of other jihadist groups cite. To do otherwise, would mean being spectacularly uninformed in this day and age.
The “religion of peace” is a narrative that will require increasing control to sustain. We are being prepared to accept jihadist violence as the norm, just ‘get used to it’ said French PM Valls, terror attacks are merely ‘part and parcel’ of big city living said Sadiq Khan.
From Gatestone Institute:
The Mayor of London’s “My Side”
The history of Islam has cut a bloody swathe through the ages. This is a history that’s being omitted altogether from the discussion, as is the nature of political Islam. These omissions have grave consequences for the future of the UK and Europe.
As Gavin Ashenden, who recently resigned, somewhat ironically considering his position, to defend his faith, suggests one should:
‘See Bill Warner on Political Islam’.
From Premier Christianity:
Allowing the Koran to be read in church is wrong. It’s why I’ve resigned as Chaplain to the Queen
‘Political Islam has subjugated civilizations for 1,400 years’
Dr. Bill Warner’s Site
From The American Thinker:
The Greatest Murder Machine in History
Ibn Kahldun said:
‘In the Muslim community, the jihad is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. . . . Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.’
Or does one believe the liberal consensus and its narrative of a religion of peace, that omits so much for reasons of ‘community cohesion’ and social engineering?