The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Sunday, 16 June 2013

Ramadhan Foundation ‘takes advantage’ of Birmingham mosque stabbings

Let me tell you a story about a hate crime which suddenly stopped being a hate crime as soon as the media realised that the attacker was a Muslim and not a non-Muslim (or a white person ).

Up until around 6am this morning the media was buzzing with the words ‘hate crime’ and ‘a possible hate crime’. Then, bizarrely, when one BBC news reporter found out that the attack wasn't carried out by the ‘far right’, but by a man 'of Somalian appearance’, he concluded:

“It does not appear to be a hate crime."  (Radio 2 at 6:01am.)

Can you believe that?

That is absurd. A man stabs four people and it's not a 'hate crime'? How's that? Can only non-Muslims or white people commit hate crimes?

The other thing is that, as usual, Muslims, and their non-Muslims enablers, were quick to assume the 'far right's' responsibly - and just hours after the attack! The Muslim group the Ramadhan Foundation even expressed its ‘deep concern’. It stopped so doing when the facts came in.

Mohammed Shafiq, the leader of national Muslim organisation the Ramadhan Foundation, very early in the day, before it was seen to be a Muslim attack, said:

"People, anti-Muslim extremists, are going to try to take advantage of this - it's very serious that a police officer has been stabbed during duty.”

What does that sound like to you? That sounds like Mohammed Shafiq ‘taking advantage of this attack’ to score points against what he calls ‘anti-Muslim extremists’. But of course that's OK because it's a Muslim taking advantage of something and not the ‘far right’ or some ‘Islamophobe’.

Also, how bad do things have to get with Muslims, and within the blood-drenched Muslim world (in the last 24 hours there have been over fifty killed in the Global Jihad in Pakistan and Iraq alone), before non-Muslims can JUSTIFIABLY MAKE THEIR POINTS AGAINST MUSLIMS AND ISLAM? Or will it always be a case of people ‘taking advantage’ of real and actual Muslim and Islamic crimes?

Can we never make the blatantly obvious and real connections between Islam and violence without ‘taking advantage’ of such things?

As usual, it's not the 'far right' that cashes in on these things, but Muslims themselves. Like Bob Pitt's Islamophobia Watch, Muslims largely invent 'Islamophobia' for political/religious ends; just as in Pakistan Muslims frequently fake 'blasphemy' against the Koran or Muhammad in order to kill or persecute Christians.

We should get rid of the racist and Leftist/PC term ‘hate crime’ which only designates Muslims, and sometimes black people, as the victims of hate crimes. In this case, even when the victims were Muslims, because the attacker was also Muslim, that still meant that the attack was not a hate crime. This also means that only non-Muslims, or whites, can commit hate crimes, which is a disgrace.

In addition, to the extent that much of the media realised it wasn’t an attack on a Muslim by a non-Muslim or a white member of some ‘far right’ group, the event became less and less prominent in the news. If it had been an EDL attack, the media would have had a field day.

No comments:

Post a Comment