The Media and ‘Prophet’ Mohammed
The Western main stream media is sleep walking towards a speedy Islamization of their societies. Many journalists voluntarily chose to do the Islamists’ dirty jobs for them. Many Western journalists increasingly refer to Mohammed as a “prophet’ even though they do not believe he was. They also describe the Quran as ‘holy’ despite their belief it is not. It may look a trivial matter but it is not; in the UK, the media is strictly secular and doesn’t refer to a ‘holy’ Jesus or Bible even though the country is traditionally a Christian country. The reasoning behind this twisted judgment is ridiculous. Their argument is that even though the journalists do not believe in Islam, there are people out there who do. Well, there are people out there (many of them Muslims) who believe Hitler was great, based on this rationale, should we refer to Hitler as “the great”?
This is not an innocent mistake but a deliberate and evil act. In the West, the media carefully chooses the words and phrases; nothing is left to chance. The BBC, as an example, has a strict protocol that must be adhered to, and it is not alone; the other main stream media have their own protocols too. They all aim to prevent the disastrous consequences of the use of words like ‘terrorists’ and linking it to Islam. The BBC, which is funded by the tax-payers money, has been adamant in its crafty practice and ignored all criticism and refused to listen to public demands. To defend their practices, they coined some philosophical answers to explain why people who blow up buses are better called ‘armed militants’ but not terrorists. With such extraordinary care in selecting words, we have the right to expect better from our media.
It is no secret that the Islamisation of Western societies is right at the top of the Islamists’ agenda; they are very clear and open about it. To the Islamists, It is a priority to tame Western societies and get them used to be respectful to Mohammed and Islam regardless of their beliefs. The repeated description of Mohammed as a “prophet” prints a favorable mental image in the minds of average citizens, which turns Mohammed to a shining example for mankind or a superstar. Idolizing Mohammed in such way leads to the assumption that he must have preached some great ideas, like Islam. It is a very clever way to advertise for Islam and a very wicked one to mislead the society.
Granting Mohammed the ‘prophet’ status is not the first step towards the Islamization of Western society; this has been happening for many years. The Islamists were hand in hand with the politicians and the media all along. Their strategy has been to introduce Islam to the society in small increments. It is like feeding the society with increasing portions of Islam until all that the society gets is Islam. Only twenty years ago, the average Westerner’s knowledge about Islam was little more than being a religion practiced by the Arabs and some Asians. Nowadays, nearly every Westerner is familiar with many Islamic details like Ramadan fasting, zakat, haj, jihad, sharia, hijab, burqa, halal and haram. In all this, Muslims are respectfully referred to as the ‘faithful’, therefore, the azan is to call the ‘faithful’ to prayers, and so on. Nearly all Westerners are familiar with the Muslims’ peculiarities such as they are easily offended, they do not drink alcohol or eat pork and you must ask if you should take your shoes off before entering their homes.
Nowadays, there are probably more mosques in the West than any other places of worship. Things that were unthinkable in the past have become routine occurrences that do not attract attention anymore. The Muslims’ communities tend to have their own areas, often governed by their own rules and patrolled by their own thugs. Halal meat is now the standard meat in many supermarkets, schools, and hospitals. Increasingly, halal food is becoming the “default” option on the menus of airlines’, public institutions and top restaurants that are not known to be frequented by Muslims.
Some may argue that Muslims constitute a substantial minority and it is only a matter of ‘politeness’ to know about their culture. True enough, but what has happened in the West has exceeded the limits of politeness. It has become the aggressive education of the whole society about Islam and a forced transformation of that society to comply with Islamic requirements. Because it wasn’t stopped from the beginning, Islam has become a cultural burden and a social nightmare to the society. In the UK, the Chinese and the non-Muslim Indians have been substantial minorities for decades but they did not force their culture on the others and never demanded others to conform to their culture. Many Indians are vegetarians or do not eat beef but they never allowed that to become an issue. On the other hand, Muslims always make demands and never waste an opportunity to make their presence known, often with a show of force. When it is prayers time, they do not hesitate to block the street and bring society to a stop while they perform their prayers in public places despite all the mosques they have. Judging from the way things are going, it would come as a no surprise to me if Muslims start complaining that it is offensive not to add PBUH after Mohammed’s name.
The reality is that Western “politeness” is not appreciated by Muslims because they know it is cowardice, plain and simple. They consider it a concession from a cowardly government ruling over a corrupt society and a humiliation of that society. Furthermore, this preferential treatment doesn’t do ‘community cohesion’ any good because it is unfair to other communities. In essence, as the Western media complements Islam and praises its values, it elevates the Islamic society to a position of superiority (just as the Koran says), whilst implicitly denigrating its own values as well as those of other minorities. For example: when the media describes the ‘hijab’ as a dress of modesty it implies that other women who chose not to wear it, whether Muslims or not, are not modest.