For years, many have complained that the mainstream media have done their utmost to paint Islam as a religion of peace and to vilify anyone who dares question this premise. For example, Paul...
How might things turn out if Britain continues on her present course? David Abbott addresses this question in the following, final excerpt from his book, Dark Albion.
Two reports into the 'Trojan Horse' Islamist plot to take over various schools in Birmingham have just been published. One was produced by Education Commissioner Peter Clarke, the other for...
In the aftermath of World War II the Labour government of Atlee and Bevin wreaked unspeakable damage on our nation and its empire. It sold out our legacy and heritage at the temples of...
I have been intrigued, but not surprised, by the performance of the mainstream media in recent days with regard to the various crises that are currently occurring around the world. The disparity...
Just how compatible is Islam with everyone who's not a Muslim? To answer this question we must look at the Koran, which according to Muslims is the perfect word of Allah.
A previous article, "'Moderate' Islam 'Hijacked' – a Mistake and a Deception" exposed the idea of a 'moderate' Islam as a Western mistake, and showed how the assertion that "Islam is Peace" and had been 'hijacked' was a carefully planted ruse to put George W. Bush off the scent after 9/11.
An inconvenient detail remained, though, for the purveyors of the twin deceptions: there seem to be rather a lot of ongoing hijackers. The West has experienced persistent acts of violence committed by Muslims against non-Muslim communities. Rather parochially the West seems not to have noticed that persistent acts of violence by Muslims against non-Muslim communities were and are happening daily elsewhere in the world. The inadequate and tainted mainstream media, the BBC in particular, fail to identify these as jihad: instead they obscure them with misleading vocabulary such as 'tensions', 'clashes', 'inter-communal violence' and other make-them-look-neutral cover terms, or else simply decide not to mention them at all. The media mask the reality and fog the issue. The question remains: what makes the 'hijackers' hijack?
To explain the occurrence of violent 'hijackers' of the 'Religion of Peace' the term 'radicalisation' came into use. The uninformed and compromised media, noticing that these violent ones were spoiling their nice picture of peace, have been assured, by wool-pulling imams, that the radicalised had got it all wrong. Ever keen to make handy labels to use in their name-calling that passes for journalism, the media seem to have failed to comprehend the term properly. Accordingly they use 'radicalised' as if it were an alternative for 'mistaken' or 'misdirected' or 'rule-breaking'. It is nothing of the sort. The radical parts of an ideology are its ROOTS (Latin RADIX, root). The radicalized have, in fact, learnt about the root elements of the ideology: they are doing exactly what it says in the book. They are the least mistaken. The bombers are radical because they are true to the doctrine's root, its core, not because they have misunderstood it.
The theory goes something like this. Islam is Peace (deception). Your average Muslim Mr. Nice Guy is prayerful, observant, and altogether moderate in his nice, peaceful outlook to all mankind. Alas, there is a 'tiny minority of extremists', rogue elements, you understand, 'warped nutters' (according to one reporter) who have 'hijacked' (deception) the vaunted Religion of Peace, because they promote a 'radicalized' violent interpretation of the alleged Nice Peaceful Moderate Islam.
The solution adopted for this wrongly diagnosed problem is to work to 'deradicalise' the delinquents (whatever that may entail) and bring them back to embrace the alleged Moderate Islam, which everyone knows is nice and peaceful. The clueless British government, quite possibly misled by diligently lying imams, has dispensed cash funds to mosques so that they can conduct their own 'deradicalisation' programmes.
Alas, the solution is as flawed as the analysis that gave rise to it. Quite probably no-one in the funding department has any idea of HOW to set about 'deradicalising' someone. How do you know what should be done when you have no clue as to what the doctrines are, still less the allegedly 'perverted' versions of them? Worse, there is no method of overseeing how the supposed deradicalising is working, or what it consists of, or whether it is happening at all. Non-Muslims are NOT ALLOWED into the prayer assemblies where the fiery sermons are given. The use of the funds, therefore, has to be left to the clerics. Their ideology authorizes them to deceive, so it is not possible to rely on their word. One of the mosques that received deradicalisation funds was that attended by one of the London bombers: maybe the funds came in useful for buying explosives.
The ignoring of Islam's doctrines by the state is nourishing the mistakes, failing to reveal the deceptions, and perpetuating fatuous policies. It amounts to negligence. The doctrine information is easily available on the Internet. Taxpayer funds are being wrongly and wastefully applied in a process that is simply prolonging the errors and exposing the population to ongoing risk. When will the next Boston-type Jihad attack be?
To see more articles by this author, search for Michael Copeland using the search box at top-right of the page.