Taqiyya at the Beeb

The two articles below about the BBC were published successively in 2013 by Michael Copeland.

BBC Fog-Making: Soldier Murder in Afghanistan

by Michael Copeland

This article was originally published at Liberty GB, 4 April 2013.

Colonel Lapan, spokesman for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff commented, “we don’t know what’s causing them [insider killings], and we’re looking at everything.” (FrontPage Mag)

In Afghanistan earlier this year (2013) there was yet another dreadful soldier murder and multiple wounding by an Afghan trainee. The BBC, in a shameful piece, “What lies behind Afghanistan’s insider attacks?”, blames a “rogue soldier”. Yet a soldier obeying instructions in his manual is no “rogue”.

Read the Koran, BBC, instead of having an unnamed author refer to unidentified “many analysts” and tipping a barrow load of red herrings such as this:

But perhaps worryingly for Nato the motivation for many of the assaults cannot be pinned down so precisely. Many analysts believe they are rooted in underlying, even subconscious, resentments that are prone to flare up and with deadly consequences.

This is fog-making, reprehensible and damaging. Completely contrary to what the author claims, the motivations can be pinned down precisely: they are in the manual revered by every dutiful Soldier of Allah, namely the Koran, the book of fighting the unbeliever. Everywhere that is not Dar al Islam, ‘The House of Islam’, is Dar al Harb, ‘The House of War’ (What the West Needs to Know). Non-Muslims are “the worst of creatures” (Koran 98:6), “the vilest of beasts” (8:22, 8:55). “Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers” (2:98), so therefore must all Muslims be also: “The disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy” (4:101). NATO, treated as an ‘occupier’, is doubly an enemy.

When a Soldier of Allah murders an infidel ‘occupier’ he is obeying the instructions in his war manual. Some 64% of the Koran concerns non-Muslims, the kafirs, and how to fight them. Islam is political: it concerns land, and involves fighting. It aims for “Mastership of the World”, as the Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badi proclaimed in 2011.

“The mosques are our barracks,” recited Recep Tayyip Erdogan, before he was Prime Minister of Turkey, “the domes our helmets, the minarets our spears, and the faithful our soldiers.” It was to the BBC that Anjem Choudary explained: “Nothing else is mentioned more than the topic of fighting in the Koran.”

Don’t the BBC listen? Can’t they read? Do they think they know better? Or are they negligently and recklessly allowing the anonymous author to supply them with fog? Thus do they directly imperil our soldiers’ lives. Shame on you, BBC. Will you name your author? Who are the “many analysts”? Cite them. Show us where we can read their analyses.

The Koran cannot be brushed aside: it forms part of Islamic Law. To deny any verse in it calls for the death penalty (Manual of Islamic Law o8.7 (7)). Its content is billed as “true from eternity to eternity” (Sam Solomon, former professor of Shariah Law). Here are just a few of the many, many fighting instructions:

  • Kill the polytheists wherever you find them. 9:5
  • Fight those who do not believe in Allah. 9:29
  • Slay them wherever you find them. 4:89
  • Fight the idolaters utterly. 9:36
  • And that Allah may … exterminate the infidel. 3:141

Remember that when a soldier of Allah has killed infidels it was not he that did the killing: “You killed them not, but Allah killed them.” (8:17) There are instructions about relationships with non-Muslims, the kuffar (a word cognate with ‘dirt’), who are “unclean” (9:28), “the most despicable” (98:6):

  • Do not take the Jews and Christians as allies. 5:51
  • Muslims are merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbeliever. 48:29

Osama bin Laden wrote: “Battle, animosity and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion.”

The doctrine of “Permissible Lying” (Manual, r8.2) authorises the Muslim to maintain piously a false appearance of friendship. The revered collector of traditions, Sahih Al-Bukhari, recorded that Mohammed’s companion Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Mohammed himself said, “War is deceit” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, 269). So, too, with agreements: Mohammed is quoted in the Hadith, the traditions, saying, “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath” (see Sahih Bukhari 7.67.427). Agreements with infidels are not binding. An Afghan who appears friendly but who turns his gun on NATO personnel is no “rogue”: he is doing EXACTLY what it says in his book. This is why there should not be any joint patrols, or armed Afghans within NATO bases.

Killing infidels in a situation where the killer himself may well be killed may seem puzzling to a Western mind, but this is a main component of the motivation:

“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain” (Koran 9:111).

This is the justification for the ‘martyrdom’ (suicide) bombing. The ordinary Muslim can never be sure whether his good deeds will sufficiently outweigh his bad deeds so that he will not be consigned to Hell in the afterlife. In contrast, those who “slay and are slain” are guaranteed immediate entry to Paradise with seventy-two beautiful dark-eyed girls each, perpetually virginal, and boys like pearls, where there will be wine and sumptuous fruits. In Islam’s teachings the martyr achieves his wedding in heaven. The Muslim loves death as the Westerners love life, Osama bin Laden explained.

These matters of Islamic doctrine are what are taught in the mosques. They are not surprise news to Muslims. They can be found without difficulty on the internet. These are what the BBC’s anonymous author refers to as “the complex web of factors that lead Afghan soldiers to turn their guns on their allies.”

Evidently they are not too complex for an Afghan tribesman. Shame on you, BBC.

BBC Deception

by Michael Copeland

This article was originally published at Liberty GB, 28 October, 2013

There is deception at the BBC. It concerns Islam. Those deceived are the public and the uncritical BBC themselves. “If you want to learn about Islam,” recommended Paul Wilkinson, “do not talk to Muslims”. Why? It is because Islam authorises Muslims to deceive the kuffar — non-Muslims — in the cause of Islam. This deception carries an Arabic name — taqiyya. The Manual of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Traveller, has the section “Permissible Lying” (r8.2) which describes it.

Wafa Sultan, an Arabic-speaking Egyptian former Muslim who has studied and written on Sharia law, that is, Islamic law, explains that in some circumstances taqiyya is not merely permissible but mandatory. There is nothing reprehensible to a Muslim about deceiving the kuffar: it is not something for which any forgiveness need be sought. Deception of the kuffar is halal — permitted.

In January 2013, after yet further murders of British soldiers by Afghan insiders, the BBC published an article, “What lies behind Afghanistan’s insider attacks?” The author, unnamed, generated a fog of obscurity around the motives for the killings of NATO (infidel) soldiers and referred to “many analysts”, also unnamed:

“But — perhaps worryingly for Nato — the motivation for many of the assaults cannot be pinned down so precisely. Many analysts believe they are rooted in underlying, even subconscious, resentments that are prone to flare up and with deadly consequences.”

In “BBC Fog-making: Soldier Murder in Afghanistan”, the present writer demonstrated that the motives, far from being obscure, are clearly set out in the Koran. The Koran forms part of Islamic law. Over and over again it instructs Muslims to fight and kill the infidel, particularly those fighting Muslims in a Muslim land. Killing and violence are mandated in more than a hundred verses, as in Sura At-Tawba (the 9th sura, or chapter), the one cited by the self-proclaimed Woolwich soldier-killer, which (v. 5) says, “Kill unbelievers wherever you find them.”

Denying any verse in the Koran brings the death penalty (Manual of Islamic Law o8.2, o8.7(7)). The person who does so makes himself an apostate, one who has left the religion. Killing an apostate can be carried out without penalty by anyone, “since it is killing someone who deserves to die” (o8.4). This is what Wafa Sultan refers to as Islam’s “vigilante” justice.

The verses of the Koran cannot be reformed: “None can change His words” (18:27). To do so makes the person an apostate. The Koran says, “If they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them” (4:89). All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence confirm that apostates are to be killed. Mohammed said, “If somebody discards his religion, kill him.” (Bukhari 52:260) .

Liberty GB formally asked the BBC to supply the name of the author and the references to the analysts cited. There has been no reply. That leaves readers to surmise that deception has been employed. The BBC, in their simpleton way, are presumed to have asked a Muslim, or a Muslim sympathiser, to contribute an article explaining the soldier murders. The result was the deceptive fog cited above. Quite probably the “many analysts” it alludes to never existed, or else are just mates at the mosque. Their ‘analysis’ has not been published.

If this surmise is mistaken let the BBC correct it. The inferred deception AT the BBC has been deception OF the senior editors at the BBC. However, as soon as they uncritically and negligently accepted the material and published it as their own they elevated it to deception BY the BBC.

Afterword

The BBC never did supply the name of their author, nor the “many analysts” cited.

References

For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.

8 thoughts on “Taqiyya at the Beeb

  1. The above verses call for the premeditated murder of the people of the book as a religious duty. You thus have a crime, and a religious conspiracy to commit it that violates both the 1st and 14th amendments (religion and race respectively).
    The $64 million question is, “Why is a religion whose central tenet of war and murder against those who are not adherents allowed to practice, or oven be recognized as a religion in this country?”

  2. One shouldn’t be too surprised by the BBC. After all, they also willingly disregarded the seriousness of the scribblings of Herr Schicklgruber in Mein Kampf.

    • The BBC, a loathsome organisation well practised in deceit and cover-up. The ‘grooming gang’ atrocities and Jimmy Saville come to mind.

  3. There is no need to read this article. I most certainly didn’t.

    But I did think the headline was a wonderful invitation to anyone to begin their search for members of staff at the BBC and their addresses.

  4. The learning curve is long over, if you have not learned by now that islam kills? You deserve to be the sheep for the slaughter. I have no more sympathy nor empathy to those who don’t see these GD savages of allah the devil and not take corrective action to avoid or keep a jaundiced eye on them. When in these islamic countries(or any where these savages live), never turn your back to these savages, ever. You will longer that way and always be prepared to defend yourselves, oh and forget about calling the police, they are no longer your friends and will not protect you any longer, you are on your own.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.