Muslims Were The Real Victims Of The Nice Terror Attack, The BBC Explains

A woman weeps as she views flowers and tributes on the Promenade des Anglais on July 16, 2016 in Nice, France. Five people believed to be linked to the man who killed 84 people in Nice are in police custody according to a statement by the Paris prosecutor's office after …
Carl Court/Getty

More bad news from Nice: we learn from the BBC that local Muslims have been getting the cold shoulder from their kuffar neighbours. “People who yesterday would embrace me warmly are now cold towards me,” says one.

And all because of the unfortunate and terribly unfair coincidence that the man who mowed down over 100 people in a truck just happened to be called Mohamed, of Tunisian descent, and allegedly yelling “Allahu Akbar” as he went about his murderous spree.

“The worst affected by these attacks are us, the Muslims. We have seen an increase in abuse and threats,” complains local man Ahmed Mohamed.

Another – Abdul Moniem – has some sage things to say about not pointing the finger of blame.

“You have to distinguish between different types of crime. Are these crimes that relate to terrorism? Or are these individual criminal acts? In this case what happened was a terrible crime and shouldn’t be treated as terrorism. The criminal who carried out this attack did not pray or fast…he had social and relationship problems. It was this that led him to hurt people.”

The BBC is very concerned about this outbreak of ‘Islamophobia’. That would be why it sent a reporter – also called Mohamed – to down to investigate.

But I’ve a strange feeling that not many of you reading this – unless, perhaps, your name is Mohammed, or you are LBC’s resident faux-Cockney dhimmi James O’Brien, or you work for the BBC yourself – are going to be shedding bitter tears for Nice’s Muslim community right now. In fact you may well suspect that reports like this are very much part of the problem not the solution.

This is what Douglas Murray argues in a Spectator piece entitled We need to tackle attacks like the one in Nice from the root.

It’s really not much different from the pieces he wrote after the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the Paris massacre. But then, barring a few details – innocents mashed with a truck rather than, as at Bataclan, either shot, blown up or tortured by having their testicles cut off or their vaginas stabbed – the situation remains just the same as it ever did: with the chattering classes, the politicians, most of the media, and virtually the entire Umma still in denial of the nightmare problem facing us.

That problem, gloss it how you will, has something to do with Islam.

No matter how many times you utter the formula about the ‘vast majority of Muslims’ being ‘peaceful and law-abiding’, you’re never going to alter the fact that this upsurge in terrorist atrocities we’ve witnessed in the last couple of decades is not being committed in the name of Hinduism or Judaism or Zoroastrianism or Christianity. It’s very much focussed on one religion in particular. Most people have been aware of this for some time: two years before Charlie Hebdo, 74 per cent of French people said they thought Islam was intolerant and incompatible with the French state. So why isn’t the Muslim “community” we keep hearing about doing more to stop it happening?

Well mainly, as far as I can see, it’s because they’re still in a state of denial.

In a way that BBC reporter I mentioned above has done us all a favour: he has gone to the scene of one of Islamist terror’s worst recent atrocities (in the West at any rate), with the bodies barely cold, and captured verbatim the all-too-typical Muslim response: victimhood; buck-passing; fatalism.

Hence the frustrated tone of Douglas Murray’s concluding paragraph:

Here is a different suggestion: do everything you can to stop people called Mohammed committing mass slaughter in Europe on a bi-monthly basis.  Get the hatred out of the mosques and the books, get the bigotry out of the community and the slightest tolerance of it identified as a major part of the problem. Of course most Muslims can’t do anything themselves to stop somebody like last night’s attacker carrying out such a deed, but they can at least have the decency to look like they’re taking part in the kind of criticism and introspection the rest of us would take part in if someone sharing even a jot of our identity had carried out such an attack.

He’s right. I’ve experienced it for myself on a 2014 debate programme on BBC Three – laughably called Free Speech – where my fellow panelists were: a Muslim Conservative MP; a trendy gay Muslim; a groovy young female feminist Muslim to whose Afghan parents Britain had most generously given asylum. In many parts of the Umma, one of them would be executed by being pushed from a high building, one would be behind a veil and gagged from venturing a public opinion, and one definitely wouldn’t be a politician. Yet all three of them, when asked about the “Islamist” problem, insisted that it had nothing to do with Islam but rather that it was the product of “Islamophobia” and “foreign policy.” Neither the audience nor the presenters challenged this lie. I was the only person to do so.

So it’s really no wonder that atrocities like the one in Nice continue to proliferate. As far as the majority of the Muslim community is concerned it’s just not their responsibility. And they are buoyed in this view by organisations like the BBC and CNN and the liberal media generally – not forgetting the wankerati and all those useful idiots on Facebook – who reassure them: “No it really isn’t your fault. It’s all just a perversion of your wonderful peace-loving religion. And if anyone suggests otherwise we’ll send the police round to arrest them…”

Can you imagine what would happen if, say, these terrorist incidents were being done in the name of Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism? Sure there’d be lots of protestations from believers that these terrible acts represented a hideous perversion of their religion. But there would also be absolutely zero tolerance for or sympathy with the perpetrators. There’d be no sympathetic priests or rabbis giving doctrinal justification for such murders. There’d be no think pieces in the Guardian, explaining it in terms of poverty and injustice. There’d certainly be not a single Jew or Christian quietly celebrating a blow struck for the faith.

I wish the same could be said of Muslims. But does anyone actually believe this is the case? 



Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.