On January 10, author and Islamic apologist Khaled Beydoun sent out a tweet that claimed, “Hindutva is terrorism.” Just five days later, he declared, “Terror isn’t exclusive to any single religion or ideology.” After all, his coreligionist Malik Faisal Akram had taken four Jews hostage at a Texas synagogue, and he had to defend his cult.
But why did Beydoun even bother? Did he not have faith in the media? The media has mastered the art of protecting the identity of Islamic terrorists, defending them when their identity is known, and downplaying their crime. I had to read five news articles to learn the name of the man who took the hostages in Texas. Some introduced him as the “hostage taker”; others as a man with a “British accent.” How difficult was it anyway for an informed reader to figure that a terrorist demanding the freedom of an Islamic terrorist has to be one as well?
Now that it has been revealed that Malik Faisal Akram was a 44-year-old British Pakistani citizen who had started to show his jihadist colors from 2001 on and had been banned from Blackburn’s magistrates’ court for repeatedly threatening the staff, a new story is being spun around him. The brother of the dead jihadi informs us that Akram, who had fathered six children, had “mental health issues.” This is an out-of-date format, a template that has been done to death. It evokes laughter, not the sympathy our media is trying to create.
Some four months ago, a huge anti-Hindu pogrom broke out in Bangladesh. Mobs of enraged Muslims were razing Hindu temples, tearing down makeshift religious pavilions put together for Durga Puja celebrations, raiding Hindu houses, and killing Hindu devotees in the International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) temple. They argued that the Hindus had insulted the Quran by placing it in front of a Hindu diety’s idol. When ISKCON tried to create awareness about this violence through their official Twitter handle, Twitter, very conveniently, removed the Bangladesh ISKCON Twitter account.
Locals alleged that three women of a Hindu family, including a minor, were gang-raped by Muslim rioters; the child had eventually succumbed to her injuries. A local news channel also acknowledged the incident, but shortly after airing their report, they edited the video, omitting the news about the rape and the death it caused.
After investigations, the police discovered that it was not a Hindu, but a Muslim named Iqbal Hossain who had taken the Quran into the Hindu pavilion, leading to the communal riots. Soon the Internet was awash with reports explaining that Hossain was a mentally challenged vagabond, almost acquitting him of his offense. Do you see a pattern here?
On February 14, 2019, a 21-year-old Kashmiri suicide bomber, Adil Ahmad Dar, who was working for Pakistan-based terror group Jaish-e-Mohammad, rammed his explosive-laden car into a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) convoy, killing 40 Indian armed forces personnel. The media got to work instantly. One Muslim journalist reported that Dar was a fan of Indian cricketers, implying he was just like any other Indian boy his age; another media house interviewed Dar’s father, who alleged that his son was radicalized after being stopped by the police on his way home from school some three years ago. Since then, he had been determined to join the jihadis.
Bringing the aging parents of deceased jihad terrorists into the picture is an effective way of garnering sympathy. After Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist Burhan Muzzafar Wani was taken down by Indian forces, media outlets presented him as an innocent son of a poor schoolteacher who was a victim of extrajudicial killings.
The founder of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, was unarguably one of the biggest terrorists of our times. On the sixth anniversary of his death, an Indian news outlet tried to humanize him by featuring an article describing him as a “loving father” and reiterating the same old “People are not born terrorists… The West knows only the terrorism” baloney. After massive outrage, the site had to reconsider its decision to publish this insensitive piece.
But this did not prevent them from pulling the same stunts again. After the 2020 communal riots in Delhi, pictures of one Shah Rukh Pathan brandishing a gun at a police officer went viral on social media. When the initial attempt to pass him off as a Hindu rioter failed, the media came out with a white paper on the accused murderer, watering down his crime. They painted him as a regular gym enthusiast who loves to wear crisp shirts after blow-drying his gel-smeared hair, and whose mother was waiting for him to return home and enjoy a plate of steaming biryani when he got stuck in the riot. Very convincing!
tim gallagher says
An interesting article. It is true that the mainstream media do tend to try and humanise the Muslim terrorist scum and whitewash their evil natures. There have been plenty of wealthy Muslim terrorists. As for the poverty angle, the “poor teacher’s son” angle, very few such people (at least unless they are Muslims) become terrorists. It is islam, this vile, endlessly violent religious ideology, which is the problem and it is islam which creates such huge numbers of terrorists, both wealthy and less wealthy. The world would be so much better and more peaceful without islam.
gravenimage says
And how does being a teacher’s son make one poor? Everything else being equal, this is apt to give people a leg up.
tim gallagher says
That’s true, gravenimage. Being the son of a teacher would not result in abject poverty, that’s for sure. It is all bullshit anyway, this whitewashing by the media. Plenty of the endless Muslim terrorists have been quite well off. i remember some young Muslim out here in Australia, who was studying to be a doctor deciding to clear out and join ISIS. Islam’s the problem. Those scumbags who flew the planes into the buildings in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I think, from memory, were from quite wealthy backgrounds. The only thing that I can see is that Muslims of all types commit far, far more terrorist attacks than Buddhists or Christians and Islam’s fundamentally violent nature is the reason why that is the case. The media just try to muddy the water with their obfuscation and nonsense.
somehistory says
When the terrorist is actually *poor*…as in not much money…other mozlums come to aid and abet in order for the terror to happen. They **all** seem to have more money than they need to just live and let live, and they spend it making other lives end.
tim gallagher says
No doubt true, somehistory, that other Muslims would help them out financially. As you mention there, if only these violent scum would live and let live, what a better world this would be. Knowing the basically violent nature of islam, this is never going to happen.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Tim. And notice how this apologia keeps shifting–it is not just children of welfare recipients but now children of teachers who are deemed to be so poor they have to turn to Jihad–what tripe. Besides, it has long been proven that poverty is not the main reason for turnign to Jihad in any case. Jihadists are often quite well off.
tim gallagher says
Yes, it’s islam that is the central problem, garvenimage. There are plenty of quite poor and even very poor Christians and Buddhists and Hindus, but they do not become terrorists. Islam encourages terrorism with all those calls to go out and murder non-believers in the Koran. It’s been the same old story with Islam for its entire miserable 1400 year history.
mural says
The salaries of Teachers in India (especially High school and Lower Middle) are somewhat less when compared to what other professions earn. Maybe, that is what is being alluded to here.
tim gallagher says
Yes, Murali, I thought that that might be what they were getting at when they mentioned that being the son of a teacher would lead to poverty. I didn’t know, until you mentioned that, that teachers’ salaries are quite low in India, but I thought it might be the case.
gravenimage says
My guess is that more Muslims than children of teachers turn to Jihad terror…
somehistory says
Lawyers do this for their guilty clients. When a slime rapes a kid, or murders, or becomes a serial killer, the attorney for the perp will attempt to cause sympathy for him by telling, in great detail, all of the problems he had as a young person.
Now that mozlum terrorists are so numerous, the media have become advocates in a similar way: defending the guilty by portraying them as worthy of sympathy, as opposed to one deserving severe punishment.
It’s a way of aiding and abetting without fear of joining the perp in prison.
Eleanor says
I have wondered why the leftie mainstream media will do anything to hide, protect and/or mitigate any crime carried out by Muslim/s. It’s very obvious that the Left and Islam are uncomfortable allies. The only conclusion I can come to as to why this is, is that both have a goal in common, and that is to destroy Western Civilisation, although their reasons for doing so are poles apart.
Melc says
Hitler tried this making a pact with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. It didn’t work out though as the Arab image did not fit the blond, blue eyed Aryan image Hitler had planned.
Mary says
Even though Hitler was short and black haired himself!
gravenimage says
Hitler considered Arabs racially inferior, but he admired Islam.
James Lincoln says
Eleanor says,
“…both have a goal in common, and that is to destroy Western Civilisation, although their reasons for doing so are poles apart.:
Excellent observation.
Muslims want to destroy Western civilization in order to impose sharia law.
Leftists want to destroy Western civilization in order to impose communism.
mural says
One day, these left wing folks will realise that the hunters always become the hunted. In this case, Islam will destroy them. Iran is a recent example of this phenomenon.
gravenimage says
‘Mentally unstable,’ ‘Poor teacher’s son’ – how the media whitewashes Islamic terrorists
…………..
*SIckening* whitewash of evil–but all too common, and as noted not just vis-a-vis this latest act of Jihad terror.
Satya Narayana says
This media whitewash has been mastered by some sections of the media in India. We see this happening on a daily basis.
Ade Fegan says
“Terror isn’t exclusive
to any single religion or ideology.”
as darkness isn’t exclusive to night
Ade Fegan says
“Terror isn’t exclusive
to any single religion or ideology.”
as darkness isn’t exclusive to night
rp says
Khaled Beydoun is a 100% Terrorist. He is well known on the tweeter for hating all Hindus and killing them. You have to ask him? Islam is a single truly religion with 100% ideology which promotes Terrorism , It is clearly written in all the Islamic books.
He is a true promoter of Terrorism due to his belief.