Commentary on "More Fallout from Terror Attack" – RNZ’s The Panel, 24 May 2017.

Host Jim Mora and his panel turned their attention to the Manchester Muslim suicide bombing, and they commented with New Zealand media’s typical child’s-eye view of such events. 

Neither of the commentators, Jo McCarroll and Michael Moynahan, nor the guest Muslim Soraya Dart (best guess, her name was not fully audible) used the word ‘Islam’.  This indicates a critical failure of understanding, despite gentle prompting from Jim Mora.  They were unable to articulate the reason for the bombing, especially of the emotionally-laden slaughter of pre- and adolescent girls.

It is not possible to comprehend any jihadi’s actions – suicide bombing or armed attack – without understanding the root cause, Islam.  Muslims may be arrayed on a spectrum from the fully assimilated through to the fundamentalist suicide bomber, but this is not the case with Islam.  Islam’s holy books render it as the perfect and complete system for controlling society, and their prophet Muhammad as the Perfect Man and worthy of emulation.  These sources are very explicit on the actions jihadis can take and the rewards they will receive for carrying out attacks such as the Manchester Arena, which are perfectly aligned with Islamic principles and doctrines.

Very briefly, the purpose of this and any attack by jihadis is to:

• Keep Islam in the news, maintain commentary, and allow the clerisy to deny the involvement of Islam in jihadist acts.  “All publicity is good. . .” 
• Demonstrate that Islam requires submission and that frivolity will be punished in this life, which is solely for preparation for entry to paradise in the next.
• Conflict tends to increase religious commitment, allowing jihad to self-reinforce.
• It suppresses criticism and reinforces anti-‘Islamophobia’ discourse.  Death threats and terrorism show that disparagement of Islam could result in slaughter.
• It encourages acquiescence, appeasement, compromise and placation.  Given Islam’s cowed opposition and the inability of security forces to prevent all attacks, there is no alternative to submission to Islam.  Europe fights back with prayers, tears, flowers, candles and teddy bears.
• It reinforces a common Western perception that it is being punished for attacking Islam and for killing Muslims in Muslim lands, and bombings are a retaliation.
• A warning to the West of the consequences of failure to comply with sharia requirements.
• Demonstrates the commitment of Muslims to die for their cause, that Muslims and Islam must not be demeaned because all Muslims have the potential to kill.
• The West’s denial of Islam’s responsibility for acts of terrorism done in the West diminishes the fact that jihadists consider the actions have divine authority.  The result of this is that Westerners are likely to regard jihad as collection of isolated acts.  If the warnings are devalued, it’s possible that jihadists may redouble their efforts.
• To divide views in both Western society and Western Muslim opinion for digressive purposes, the result of which is to permit the consolidation of mainstream conservative Islam. 

 Islam regards the whole world as Islamic, but divided into those people who submit to the will of Allah, and those who do not.  The latter are condemned to hell, and the process of sending them there is immaterial.  Thus the massacre of adolescent infidels is of no consequence.

The panellists’ ignorance of Islamic basics is understandable, given the egregious absence of discourse in our media, academia, and the agora.  The choice of a Muslim commentator is a dereliction of responsibility for The Panel.  Her banal and self-referential response was fully in line with the doctrines of taqiyya and kitman and added nothing to the debate. 

To serve The Panel’s audience better it should find an ex-Muslim for commentary on Islam.  Only then will the truth come out.  But perhaps The Panel doesn’t want that.

POSTSCRIPT:

It should be noted that the reason females were attacked at both Manchester and the 3 June London assault is because a strict interpretation of Islam considers that females are not permitted to be out of the house without being veiled and in the protection of a male relative.  These females are triply-valid targets for the jihadi because they are considered under-dressed thus grossly immodest, they are unaccompanied, and that they are kuffar, or infidels.

I neglected to include Islam's doctrine most relevant to the jihadis' actions, that of the 'terror' part of Dawah Baina Al Tarhib Wal Targhib, that is, "preaching between terror and lure."  An explanation can be found here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/235206/islamic-tactic-terror-and-lure-nonie-darwish

I invited The Panel to comment but they did not respond.