A “Radicalisation Expert” Reports to the Manchester Arena Inquiry


Salman Abedi, observant Muslim, Manchester Arena bomber

A “radicalisation expert” reports to the Manchester Arena Inquiry

By Michael Copeland

The Manchester Arena Inquiry is examining the circumstances of the bombing there by the Libyan Muslim jihadi Salman Abedi that killed and maimed multiple victims, many of them children. The Inquiry has received reports from Dr. Matthew Wilkinson, billed as a “radicalisation expert”. Their own report states that there is no suggestion that Dr. Wilkinson’s reports are written from other than an entirely objective viewpoint. Is that the case?

“Radicalisation”

The UK Government’s definition of “radicalisation” is the “process by which a person comes to support terrorism and forms of extremism leading to terrorism”.

This term is used by politicians and media to create a category, the “radicalised” Muslim. This person, by inference, is thought of as different from an observant Muslim. He is assumed to have “misunderstood” his peaceful religion, and is therefore in need of being “de-radicalized” (whatever that may mean). This is not simply misleading: it is factually incorrect. The term is a trap. It sets up an artificial distinction which implicitly separates this category from mainstream Islam. It dangerously begets a subconscious assumption that ordinary Islam is calm and serene, when it is nothing of the sort.

A “radicalised” person, in the definition above, is one who espouses violence in his cause. Islam, it needs to be emphasised, mandates violence towards non-Muslims: “Kill them wherever you find them” (Koran 2:191, 9:5) is part of Islamic law. The distinction of “radicalised Muslim” from “Muslim” is bogus. Violence against kafirs is orthodox Islam, as taught in the mosques.

“Violence is the heart of Islam”
— Ayatollah Yazdi

“Islam was never for a day the religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war”
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Caliph of Islamic State, PhD in Islamic Studies

“Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit? Yes!”
Osama bin Laden

Any observant Muslim knows that violence is commanded, and that he may be called upon to perform it. No Muslim may refute this. To do so entails denying a verse of the Koran, which immediately makes him a non-Muslim, subject to the penalty for leaving Islam — being killed vigilante-style by anyone. Such killing is free of punishment, “since it is killing someone who deserves to die” (Manual of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Traveller, o.8.4). So-called “radicalised” behaviour is, in fact, dutiful compliance with basic Islam.

“Radicalisation” is a fantasy fed to Western politicians and the Deep State. It is, however, a lucrative one, providing the subject matter for think tanks and taxpayer-funded programmes. For Muslims it usefully obscures and obfuscates what it is to be an observant member of Islam. In consequence it is difficult to dislodge.

Dr. Wilkinson has a distinction of his own. He is a convert to Islam. His reports are written from a Muslim viewpoint, which, it has to be said, is not “entirely objective”. In them he carefully steers the spotlight away from Islam. This is done by the artful use of doubt-casting, deflections, and selected vocabulary.

Dr Wilkinson uses the terms “Islamist” and “extremist”. This double distinction has a subtle unspoken effect. It is a decoy. It takes attention away from Islam and nourishes the notion (thoughtfully unstated) that such a person is different from an observant Muslim. Nothing to do with Islam, you see. Using this term for the problem Muslim in turn silently engenders the comforting subconscious assumption in the unwary listener that Islam itself is all fine and dandy, peaceful and problem-free. That is the trap.

“Islamist”

What is an “Islamist”? Significantly, the word does not appear in the Manual of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Traveller, nor does the word “radicalised”, for that matter. No, “Islamist” has been invented for use in the West to draw attention away from Islam. The BBC helpfully provides a description:

Islamists aim to reorder government and society in accordance with Islamic law, or Sharia.”

Anyone familiar with Islam’s teachings and agenda will realise that this aim is identical with that of Islam, ordinary basic Islam. The “Islamist” distinction is bogus.

“Extremist”

What is an “extremist”? Here is the UK government’s definition of extremism, in their “Prevent” strategy:

“Extremism is vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs…”

Islam is, indeed, vocally and actively opposed to all those matters listed. Opposition to them is basic Islamic doctrine. An internet search of Muslim placards will confirm this within seconds. Here are examples:

  • Democracy go to Hell
  • Democracy is Hypocrisy
  • Muslims reject democracy and secularism!
  • Freedom go to Hell
  • Liberalism go to Hell
  • Freedom of expression go to Hell
  • British police go to Hell
  • Anglian Soldiers go to Hell
  • Down with England

The Koran, part of Islamic Law, makes clear in 3:85:

“If anyone desire a religion other than Islam never will it be accepted of him…”

So much for “mutual respect and tolerance”. As can be seen, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make a distinction between an “extremist” and an observant Muslim.

The problem is not “radicalisation”, or the “Islamist”, or the “extremist”. The problem is Islam.

Islamic State

Dr. Wilkinson disparages the Islamic State as “the so-called Islamic State group”, thereby casting doubt on its Islamic identity, and its claim of being a State. The Islamic State, though, had a cast-iron Islamic identity: its Caliph had a PhD in Islamic Studies, and had been an outstanding candidate. In Dr. Wilkinson’s testimony the Islamic State is merely a “group”, and is only “said to have” inspired the bomber. He will not link the two. Move along now, nothing to see here.

Red flag

The Manchester Arena bomber, Salman Abedi, had punched in the face a young woman who was wearing a short skirt, and continued to punch her when she was down on the ground. This action was highlighted at the Inquiry as being something that could or should have raised a red flag, on the grounds that it could indicate that he espoused violence, and was thus an “extremist”, or else had been “radicalised”. In Islam women — who are chattels that belong to men — have to dress compliantly (mischaracterised as “modestly”) so “that they will be known and not be abused” (Koran 33:59). Men are authorised to beat women from whom they “fear disobedience” (4:34). The punching has a distinctly Islamic justification, befitting an observant Muslim: the young woman was not obeying Islam’s dress requirements, and so was eligible to be beaten.

“A Muslim woman must not wear a short garment which reveals the legs,” instructs a Muslim video for children. There are other videos of imams explaining that if a girl of ten or more does not wear the hijab “We hit her” (MEMRI videos).

The punching incident was, indeed, a “red flag” event. Nevertheless Dr. Wilkinson diverted attention away by focussing on “a pattern of those convicted of Islamist extremist offences also having a history of violence towards women…”

You see, these are violent men who have a problem with women. The “pattern”, as he describes it, though a giveaway as distinctly Islamic, is passed over. The bomber, he explained, was “someone who had a very bad attitude towards women.” It was a personal thing. No link with Islam.

All these decoys, disparagement, dismissal, deflection, diversion and doubt-casting are designed to steer the spotlight away from Islam. Keep moving along.

What constitutes a red flag to an observant Muslim?

What the Inquiry seems not to have been told is what constitutes a red flag to an observant Muslim. There were several of them at that Ariana Grande concert:

  • Uncovered girls and women — forbidden by Islam
  • Mothers and daughters in public without a male guardian — forbidden by Islam
  • Mixing of the sexes in public — forbidden in Islam
  • Music — forbidden in Islam
  • Songstress — not approved by Mohammed

The observant Muslim has a responsibility to correct behaviour that is against Islamic law. One of the sections in the Manual of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Traveller, is “Commanding the right and forbidding the wrong”. It has a subsection headed “Righting the wrong by hand”. That includes hitting the person who is not obeying Islamic law. Another example is “Destroying musical instruments” (q5.6). An Ariana Grande concert constitutes a highly qualifying target.

Islamic apartheid

Islam instructs Muslims to hate kafirs (non-Muslims), to strike terror into their hearts, to subjugate them, and to kill them, to make Islam prevail over the whole world. The Islamic doctrine of Friendship and Enmity — friendship with Muslims and enmity towards kafirs — is fundamental. Its Arabic name is Al Walaa Wal Baraa. Muslims are instructed to be “merciful to each other and ruthless to the unbeliever” (Koran 48:29, part of Islamic law).

…true believers show ANIMOSITY and HATRED towards disbelievers and NEVER support them.
— ibn Taymiyya, “Book of Emaan

“Battle, animosity and hatred, directed from the Muslim to the infidel, is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.”
Osama bin Laden

“So terrorizing the enemy is in fact part of Islam.”
Anjem Choudary

“The Quran obliges every able Muslim to participate in jihad and fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, and kill them wherever you find them … “
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, at his trial 2012

“Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.”
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

“Islam is not here to integrate, Islam is here to dominate. There is no room for compromise within Islam!”
Speaker at Khilafah conference 2016

What motivates a Muslim to kill and be killed?

The idea of a suicide bomber is puzzling to Western minds. Robert Spencer has ably expounded the Islamic justification for this behaviour. The Koran explains that a tally is kept of every Muslim’s good deeds and bad deeds. If the good deeds outweigh the bad deeds the Muslim goes to paradise, with its full-breasted dark-eyed virgins, boys like pearls, luscious fruits, river of wine, and silken garments. If the bad deeds outweigh the good the Muslim goes to hell with its endless hideous torments. How is he to know where he stands? It is a question that eats into the mind of the worried individual. There is, though, a way out of this dilemma.

The finest action that a Muslim can perform is jihad, warfare against the hated kafir. Killing kafirs counts strongly as “good deeds”. Though such beliefs are not given much importance in the secular post-religious West they are taken very seriously by ardent Muslims. Witness the Reading park killer, who said,

I’m going to paradise for the Jihad what I did to them…”

If, in the course of this jihad warfare, the Muslim “kills and is killed”, thereby becoming a “martyr”, he goes straight to paradise, no questions asked. This is guaranteed by Allah in Koran 9:111:

“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. …”

Tawfik Hamid, who underwent hard-line Islamic training, bears witness:

“The idea of dying as a martyr provided a perfect escape from the frightening anguish of eternal punishment.”

That provides the motivation of Salman Abedi. He was “fighting in the way of Allah,” that is, in jihad. He was righting many Islamic wrongs by his actions; he fully intended to “kill and be killed” to obtain the guarantee of paradise.

Probably no-one has told the Inquiry these matters.

See also:

References:

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

13 thoughts on “A “Radicalisation Expert” Reports to the Manchester Arena Inquiry

  1. An important piece.

    Deceptively calling violent Jihad ‘radicalisation’ is in itself civilizational Jihad. Whoever do that, actually support Jihad terror and have blood on their hands. And when mainstream ‘experts’ suddenly start saying ‘Islamist’ instead of ‘Islamic’ or ‘Mohammedan’, it signals that the Counter Jihad is dead.

    • There are many Moslems who are lukewarm in their practice of Islam and these people are generally not a threat.
      It is those who practice Islam as it preached and are steadfast in its principles that are the threat. ISIS was probably the most authentic practitioner of Islam in the last century.
      And you never know when a lukewarm practitioner f Islam will experience a sudden personal revival, aka Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

      • We have lived under Islam from 1453-1821.
        No there is not a lukewarm Islam.
        We must send them back to where they belong,because on this continent there is us or them not both.

      • Islam and anyone who follows it are a threat, end of story. All these 3rd worlders in our western countries gotta go, or we will have a Balkans on steroids. Diversity never has worked in the history of the world, why would people think that it will this time?

        • @ G

          Re: “Diversity never has worked in the history of the world, why would people think that it will this time?”

          That’s just the point. The powerful people behind the mass migration of the diaspora of the Third World to Europe know full-well that diversity isn’t a strength at all, but a solvent by which traditional European civilization can be dissolved and broken down and ultimately swept away. They know that Islam and non-Muslims cannot coexist to any significant degree in the same societies, yet they keep on importing Muslims anyway. Why?

          The rationalizations offered up by people like Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron are, in the end, dishonest and utterly insufficient to explain what is happening. They aren’t being truthful about their goals, nor are their globalist colleagues at places like the European Union.

          The ongoing destruction of old Europe and the de facto destruction of her native peoples is not some unfortunate by-product of their good intentions; it is by design and part of their plan to erase Europe and recreate it along lines that best-serve their purposes.

          In a recent calendar year, over four-hundred Christian churches have been burned in France, the vast majority by acts of arson. The authorities wring their hands and act as if nothing is amiss other than some hooligans causing problems, but anyone with eyes to see can tell that it is much more than that. Low-intensity warfare is more like it, when you look at the acts of jihad, the arson of buildings and automobiles, the assassinations of Frenchmen, and so on.

          So, why are the authorities allowing this to happen? The only answer that makes any sense and that hangs together logically is that what is happening is intended to happen. One or two churches being torched can be attributed to isolated incidents, but hundreds? That’s not possible.

          As British novelist Ian Fleming said, “Once is chance, twice is happenstance, but three times is enemy action,” and he was right.

      • @ Harry_the_Horrible

        Re: “There are many Moslems who are lukewarm in their practice of Islam and these people are generally not a threat.”

        Perhaps not directly, as in in committing acts of jihad of the sword but they most-definitely threaten non-Muslims and non-Muslim societies if they reproduce. It is well-known that the imams urge Islamic couples in infidel lands to have large families, in order to out-breed and thereby eventually 0ut-number non-Muslims.

        The late Libyan President Qaddafi once exclaimed to his fellow Muslims words to the effect of, “Our (meaning Muslim) victory over the infidels will be won with the wombs of our women and without firing a shot…”

        Non-Islamic societies can tolerate a very small minority of Muslims in the 1-2% range, but not much larger than that before problems begin occurring. When they are few in number, they generally behave, but there is an absolute correlation between their numbers growing and their assertiveness and aggressiveness growing right along with it. This is their method of conquest and has been for nearly 1,500 years.

  2. There is no such GD thing as radical islam, there is only bloody islam, no more muslims = no more bloody problem. Everybody here knows it comes to bloodshed to get rid of this vermin pestilence. Get your Crusades on!

  3. I was discussing this issue with a Thai Buddhist monk in a temple in Chiang Mai a couple of years back. He was telling me how to live a good and peaceful life. I asked him whether there were many muslims in heaven to which he replied that there were none.

    “They kill people. They go straight to hell.” I was told.

    Best place for them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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