Has the BBC Changed its Mind About Mosques and Terrorism?

Tommy Robinson has been a relentless critic of what is being preached in mosques. The BBC has just as relentlessly demonized him for his point of view.

Could that be changing?

Vlad Tepes pointed out this BBC report linking Islamic preaching and the mosque in Manchester to the violent message contained in Islam, which the BBC had avoided at all costs up until that point:

And here are excerpts from the accompanying article:

Manchester Mosque Sermon ‘Called for Armed Jihad’, Say Scholars

A sermon at the mosque where the Manchester bomber worshipped called for the support of armed jihadist fighters, according to two Muslim scholars.

An imam at Didsbury Mosque in December 2016 was recorded praying for “victory” for “our brothers and sisters right now in Aleppo and Syria and Iraq”.

Scholars Usama Hasan and Shaykh Rehan said it referred to “military jihad”.

The imam, Mustafa Graf, says his sermon did not call for armed jihad and he has never preached radical Islam.

The recording the BBC obtained is of Friday prayers at the mosque six months before Salman Abedi detonated a suicide bomb following an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena in May 2017.

Abedi and his family regularly attended the mosque and his father sometimes led the call to prayer.

I didn’t agree with Vlad’s take on the report. I saw this as a strategic and temporary retreat by the Beeb and the British establishment.

Here’s a digest of our discussion on skype:

Baron:   It’s an attempt to cauterize the wound for Muslims, by elevating those “scholars” and making a scapegoat of the imam.
    I wish Steve Coughlin or Bill Warner had been there to ask those scholars some pointed questions.
    This is a skilled shot at strengthening the grip of Islam, to keep it from being fully exposed. It’s their strong fallback position, a tough line of defense. A very smart strategic move.
Vlad:   But its a full line of defence behind their primary line.
Baron:   It doesn’t threaten the ascendancy of Islam at all.
Vlad:   Well, the real danger is that the Beeb will gain authority amongst skeptics by this.
Baron:   Yes, that, too.
    I’m telling you: This is the BBC mounting an effective strategic defense of Islamic Britain. The structure and functioning of Islam in Britain will remain untouched. One mosque and one imam will be sacrificed for the good of the whole.
    And most importantly, this enshrines Muslims themselves — the “scholars” — as arbiters of what jihad is, and what is meant by certain terms and passages in Islam. That precludes any independent analysis by anyone not already sympathetic to Islamic ideology.
    This is very clever, very skilled propaganda.

Sure enough, in a follow-up article the next day, the BBC walked back even the weak dishwater that its “scholars” had offered:

Manchester Mosque Denies ‘Military Jihad’ Support

A mosque where the Manchester Arena bomber worshipped denies encouraging people to “fight in any military struggle” following a BBC report.

A sermon by Imam Mustafa Graf at Didsbury Mosque in 2016 called for the support of fighters in Syria, according to two Muslim scholars.

It was delivered six months before Salman Abedi killed 22 people after an Ariana Grande concert.

Mr Graf declined to be interviewed but denied preaching Islamic extremism.

Didsbury Mosque said it had “launched an investigation into the sermon to identify any issues raised by the BBC report” as part of its regulations.


Shaykh Rehan Ahmed Raza, who is a Muslim scholar, said there were “no ifs and no buts” that Mr Graf was referring to “being on the battlefield”.

Usama Hasan, head of Islamic studies at the Quilliam think tank that focuses on counter-extremism, said the sermon was “clearly referring to military jihad, to armed jihad”.

Didsbury Mosque said: “The term jihad was used in its wider meaning; ‘to strive and struggle’ and in this case aid to those being oppressed. There was no call for any military Jihad (qital).

“Nor was there any comment which could in anyway be construed to suggest that Britain or British people should be targeted or attacked. The focus was on the behaviour of the Syrian regime and its victims.

“Didsbury Mosque does not encourage anyone to go and fight in any military struggle.”

Mr Graf denied he had called for armed jihad.

No, nothing has changed. After awhile the furor will die down, and things will continue as before. I doubt the imam will even be sacked, all though he could be and still leave the whole strategy intact.

And a firm precedent has been set: at the BBC, Islam defines itself to the kuffar. No outside opinions are permitted.

18 thoughts on “Has the BBC Changed its Mind About Mosques and Terrorism?

  1. “Shaykh Rehan Ahmed Raza, who is a Muslim scholar, said there were “no ifs and no buts” that Mr Graf was referring to “being on the battlefield”. ”

    But traitors have a different opinion. He won’t be convicted because:

    not enough evidence.
    we have respect muslim sensitivities.

    If we accept islam, as we have, we have to accept what is stated in their Book.
    when they insult us we have to smile sheepishly and stupidly

    – you get a new hysterical rabies


  2. Has the BBC Changed its Mind About Mosques and Terrorism?

    No it hasn’t. This is an aberration: A broken clock is correct twice a day.

  3. The other thing that no one ever seems to address is the fact that it’s Muslims who are killing Muslims in all of these places, not Americans or Europeans. Why do these outraged imams never address the much greater number of world-wide instances of Muslim violence on Muslims?

    • Because it would not be in their interest to do so. Islam is about submission, not about truth. Besides, there are lots of internecine factions in Islam; the most well-known is the Sunni/Shia split.

    • I have a hunch what the GoV readers idea might be.
      But this is a family site,isn’t it?

  4. So what we have here is audio evidence that some Imams preach the call for “military jihad”. By now I think everyone accepts that is a fact, and the muslim scholars confirm it. But what is the point BBC is trying to make? Have they realized that the old defence favorite of David Cameron ; “Islam is a religion of peace” has worn thin and few buy it. The new defence line must be “Islam is generally a religion of peace, but there are a few rat bag preachers who need weeding out.”
    The former position no one can believe anymore. The later position will convince most and keep them quiet while the country steadily moves towards Islamization. This is what the stealth jihadists want, and the hot heads are messing up their plans because they won’t wait for the certain victory that will come through immigration and the birth rate.

      • Still, this is a nice chink in the BBC’s armor of denial.
        It can be replayed over and over.
        NOW, find some nice sticky way to expose islamic tackey-ya, the is—-c way of granting its inmates the power to LIE so blatantly to the West.
        And get away with it.

  5. A religion of peace , when for a follower it is submission to Mohammad’s sayings, actions and deeds, found in the koran, backed by hadith and sira.

    Taqiyya , permissible lies, deceit to hide such deeds.

    Tawriya , appearing to agree but muslims are in their minds on another subject, inshallah, as being,”god willing”.
    As peace is submission.
    “battlefields” where ever islam is opposed, and where a non believer has not been ‘dimmified’.
    It is claimed many forms of jihad, so there is “stealth jihad” though the idea to sell is that the struggle/jihad is within just the person.

    Kitman , omission lying, like by quoting peaceful verses, though they know they are abrogated by other verses, through Mohammad’s abrogation verses.

    Muruna , by appearing contrary, like drinking, or shaving to hide a muslims real intentions. So it is not hypocrisy, but a camouflage.

    Squirrels , bring up another branch of the topic.

    Tu quoque You or others, did it too.

    Baron is quite right, that the other imams are happy to throw one of their own under a bus as either when pressure against them becomes a bit strong, as it the main strategy, for the time being, to “buy time”, as they can sense their strength in the build up of numbers of followers and mosques.

    Later the mosques will be able to permanently lock that power in to gain full control of the country. Politics, Judiciary, Police, Education etc. which already are becoming institutionalized islamic departments.
    Later the imans, ayatollahs, muftis, etc. will then happily go through their own bloody power struggles, mixed with the claim of “innocents” blood is being shed.

    So many ways of living and lying for the cause, as lead by Mohammad.
    Living and dying for the cause, is what Mohammad also really taught.

  6. What stands out to me is the abysmally poor quality of the BBC reporting. It’s like a word salad. They give the offending sermon snippets in one paragraph, a short interpretation by Muslim scholars in another, and throw in a mass of denials by the imam and mosque involved.

    Journalism, captured by the cultural Marxists and post-Modernists, has no standards of reporting or analysis.

    Real journalism, not being partisan for either point of view, would present a more comprehensive analysis by both Muslim experts, and critical non-Muslim experts. In other words, here is the context the Muslims use to view the sermon. Here is the context the critics of Islam use to view the sermon. Now, make up your own mind.

    The information and “analysis” presented in either article are absolutely insufficient for any intelligent conclusion about anything.

    You have the general incompetence of the BBC news team, along with their hard-left commitment which includes the view of Islam as a necessary acid to dissolve the evil Western culture, making the mainstream news not only slanted but almost incomprehensible concerning any picture of what is really going on.

    Muslims, as a relatively small part of the population up to a few years ago, were still able to leverage their identity group politics and bloc voting into political power giving Muslim criminals a virtually free hand. With the large increase of Muslims in the past few years, the situation will only get worse.

    I don’t see any way to avoid mass atrocities, other than a partition of the country into Muslim and non-Muslim areas. In fact, I think the loss of territory is a pretty good punishment for English mindlessly allowing their government carte blanche in pursuing disastrous policies.

    If such a partition takes place, people should keep in mind the impossibility of having smaller minorities living in peace with the majority. For example, the Hindus and Christians who stayed in Pakistan are systematically persecuted and prosecuted by an Islamic government.

    • One thing to bear in mind about partition: the new “stans” will consist primarily of urban residential areas, with no significant manufacturing plant or other productive assets. There will be no agricultural land, and the commercial base will be negligible. Unless the other side of the partition agrees to continue the delivery of jizya, the new emirates will be unable to support themselves. The kuffar would basically have to do what Israel does with Gaza: supply electricity and other necessities for free, or for a nominal charge.

      I suppose a partition agreement could include the mandatory eviction of landowners from portions of prime arable land, which would then belong to the new entity. But even then, the new owners would hardly be likely to use it effectively — Muslims have a history of destroying agricultural land through bad husbandry; it seems to flow naturally from Islamic practices.

      I don’t see any way in which partition could work for them. I think they will require full submission, with dhimmitude and/or enslavement for the former owners in perpetuity.

      I can’t think of an outcome for all this that isn’t very, very ugly.

  7. Dar – Al – Harb. According to ‘islamic scholarship’, this is the House Of War. Our lands.
    Islam unequivocally views Western Civilization as a battleground.
    This is the word of the short, fat dwarf…er, prophet of allah.
    the beeb left that little gem out of their statement of dhimmihood.

  8. This seems a good idea to me. The partition line should be drawn through the English Channel – all to the North for the British, all to the south for the Muslims. and never the twain to meet.

  9. This seems like a good idea to me. The partition line can be drawn through the English Channel – all to the north for the British; all to the south for the Muslims. The BBC can be moved south to be with its pals, to the huge benefit of the British part. Then perhaps we can see once again the famous UK newspaper headline slightly modified to suit: “Fog in the Channel : Islam cut off”.

    PS: What exactly is a Muslim Scholar? Apart from an oxymoron.

    • “What exactly is a Muslim Scholar? Apart from an oxymoron.” 🙂
      As mentioned above;-
      One who is studied all of Mohammads traits, as portrayed in koran, hadith and sira and has become well practiced in the;-
      plus “squirrels” and tu-quoque.

  10. The BBC is a day late and a dollar short with this video. In June 2017 Rebel Media published a video of Tommy Robinson visiting this same mosque and asking hard-hitting questions about the teachings emanating from there. Tommy went there shortly after the Manchester Arena bombing when the outrage at the killings was still raw. Tommy’s passion at the murders of British kids is genuine whereas the tone of the BBC reporter’s questioning is one of dutiful and rehearsed “outrage.”

    Here’s the link to Tommy at Didsbury Mosque:


    The British MSM often sneers at Tommy, saying that he’s not a “real” journalist. Now that the BBC has followed in Tommy’s footsteps, suddenly the whole question of violence and hatred taught in mosques takes on a belated credibility. It must be OK to talk about this now in the UK—but perhaps only if one couches one’s criticism in terms of “lone wolf” preachers, or aberrant imams.

    I agree that the BBC likely intends to make a scapegoat out of Didsbury Mosque (or at least out of a few “bad apple” preachers there) to divert attention from the massive problem of Islam in the UK. This BBC video will be used to “prove” that this taxpayer funded media outlet is doing its job. Public knowledge and outrage at the state of Islamic depredations in the UK have now reached the point where denial won’t work anymore, hence this BBC token effort to show it’s on the job.

    Note too, that this mosque is located in a former church. Those who founded this church and attended it throughout the years could hardly begin to fathom the monstrous fact that evil teachings now emanate from there.

Comments are closed.