The following essay by Michael Copeland was originally published in shorter form by LibertyGB in 2012.
The film trailer, “Innocence of Muslims”, depicts episodes in the life of Mohammed. Blackened without cause, it was wrongfully blamed by Hillary Clinton for the unrelated jihad attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi that killed four Americans. The Obama administration, disgracing the First Amendment, publicly apologised for it in Pakistan. The film, albeit low-budget, is important for being a pioneer work.
BBC Misinformation: Mohammed Film “Innocence of Muslims”
By Michael Copeland
“Q&A: Anti-Islam film”
On their news website the BBC have an article headed “Q&A: Anti-Islam film”. This heading neatly furnishes the desired viewpoint for the readers, to colour their understanding, and probably remain in their memories. Typical of the BBC’s articles on Islam, the author is unidentified. Consequently there is no disclaimer limiting to the author the opinions expressed: they are presented as the BBC’s own.
The writer, obviously not one of the BBC’s usual named film critics, carefully provides a slant by announcing the film as “anti-Islam”. In the text it is further criticised as “satirising” and “mocking” Mohammed: the writer calls his depicted actions “insulting”. The film, Innocence of Muslims, is a very low budget trailer. It is a brief biographical documentary, portraying incidents from the life of Mohammed, as recorded in Islam’s source texts. The BBC, who produce both satires and documentaries, have the facilities to verify the accuracy of these pejorative critiques. Their editors failed. The film does not satirise, insult, or mock Mohammed’s actions: it is not anti-Islam.
The article says:
“The footage appears to depict Islam as a religion of violence and hate.”
Are the BBC being threatened? Can they not decide whether the film depicts Islam as a religion of violence and hate, or only “appears to” do so? The writer does not say the film “appears to” be anti-Islam, or “appears to” be satirising and mocking. Why the uncertainty? Of course, this is a false critique. The BBC’s unnamed writer is blowing smoke. This bluff is there to convey, falsely, an impression of injured surprise, so as to put people off from checking for themselves. It is there to affirm and shore up the carefully planted propaganda deception, “Islam is peace”, with which George W. Bush was duped, and, after him, Hillary Clinton and a line of British politicians. This lie and its companion, “perversion of Islam”, have run and run. The writer does not want them to be disturbed.
“Let’s be clear,” said Hillary Clinton, “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Hear Tony Blair: “…there is not a problem with Islam… there is no doubt about its true and peaceful nature… The doctrine and teachings of Islam are those of peace and harmony… It is a whole teaching dedicated to building peace in the world…” (quoted by Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe). Of the terrorists’ motivation Blair says: “It’s an ideology based in a complete perversion of the proper faith of Islam… …perversion of Islam is the source of a lot of the problems in the Middle East”.
David Cameron repeated the same narrative, in his best emphatic air of authority: “They are killing and slaughtering thousands of people… They boast of their brutality. They claim to do this in the name of Islam. That is nonsense. Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims. They are monsters.”
So, too, Theresa May, adopting her authoritative and confident tone, “It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam… Islam is entirely compatible with British values and our national way of life.”
These are all falsehoods. They are what smooth-talking Islamic deceivers, like serial liar Tariq Ramadan, advisor to both Blair and Cameron, have been feeding to politicians under Islam’s doctrine of “Permissible Lying” (Manual of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Traveller, r8). Islam is all sweetness, you see: it could not possibly be a religion of violence and hate. This also complies with the tyrannical political correctness that prevents true descriptions from being expressed.
Islam authorises deception of kafirs. This has an Arabic name, taqiyya. “Using deception to mask intended goals” is instructed in the Muslim Brotherhood’s secret “Explanatory Memorandum” captured in a police raid. The deceived politicians’ rosy picture is completely at variance with Islam’s track record, its source texts, and its leaders’ announcements, all accessible on the internet. The BBC themselves were told directly by Anjem Choudary: “Islam does not mean ‘Peace’: it means ‘Submission’.” Apparently BBC editors know better.
The film Innocence of Muslims is accurate.
“Violence is the heart of Islam”, says Ayatollah Yazdi of Iran, advisor to Iran’s Ahmadinejad. “Battle,” — which is violent — “animosity, and hatred …are the basis of our religion”, explained Osama bin Laden in his open letter after 9/11. “Islam is a religion of blood for the infidels. Prophet had sword to kill people,” proclaimed Ayatollah Khomeini; “a religion of war and conflict”, said Caliph al Baghdadi; “a permanent war institution”, instructs Al Azhar in Cairo. “Islam is a religion of power, fighting, jihad, beheading and bloodshed”, says Imam Hussein Bin Mahmoud, a prominent writer. “Muslims… must have… enmity and hatred” of kafirs, instructs islamqa.com. “As a Muslim”, explained Anjem Choudary to the BBC’s own Newsnight, “I must have hatred for everything that is non-Islam”. Don’t the BBC’s editors listen?
The Koran, which anyone can consult online, is the authority. The “excellent pattern” praised in Koran 60:4 is: “between us and you enmity and hatred forever…”. Koran 9.5, a late verse which overrides — “abrogates” — all peaceful verses elsewhere, because they are earlier, says: “Kill the idolaters wherever you find them…”. Christians count as idolaters because Islam teaches, erroneously, that they worship the cross. There are many, many more verses which repeat these themes. The verses are — all of them — part of Islamic law, with the death penalty for denying even one (Manual of Islamic Law, Reliance of the Traveller, o8.7(7)). Can the BBC’s editors not read them? Do they patronisingly assume that their viewers cannot read them?
The article goes on to say: