May 24

Didsbury Mosque link to ‘respectful’ bomber

Didsbury Mosque was originally a Methodist church

Didsbury Mosque was originally a Methodist church

A mosque and Islamic Centre south of Manchester are linked to the Manchester Arena bombing.

The bomber, identified in a leak from US security as Salman Ramadan Abedi, was a regular worshiper at Didsbury Mosque.  His father is a leading player in the mosque.  Abu Ismail Abedi regularly calls the men to prayer.

Didsbury mosque is in Burton Road, Didsbury, not far from Junction 5 of the M60.  The mosque adjoins Manchester Islamic Centre.  The building was originally Albert Park Methodist Chapel.  Sadly the 19th-century chapel closed in 1962 and was later converted into a mosque.  Didsbury Mosque has an attendance of around 1,000 people.  The Manchester Islamic Centre is a registered charity.

The Guardian reported: ‘Abedi was known to the security services but was not part of any active investigation or regarded as a high risk. He was viewed as a peripheral figure in much the same way as the Westminster attacker, Khalid Masood.

Abedi ‘quiet’ and ‘devout’

The paper found several people at the mosque willing to speak to them.  One member of Manchester’s Libyan community told the Guardian about Salman Abedi. ‘He was such a quiet boy, always very respectful towards me.’  Of course he was.  That is just Middle-Eastern culture.  Defending Abedi’s father, equally devout, the man said: ‘his boys learned the Qur’an by heart.’  There are no surprises there.  The father is thought to be in Tripoli, and his sons had travelled there as well.

Salman Abedi - devout

Salman Abedi – devout

The interviewee went on to say, ‘Abu Ismail will be terribly distraught. He was always very confrontational with jihadi ideology, and this Isis thing isn’t even jihad, it’s criminality. The family will be devastated.’

Didsbury Mosque sermon problem

Others recalled very differently.  Mohammed Saeed is a senior figure in Didsbury Mosque and Islamic Centre.  He was born in Libya and came to the UK in 1980.

Saeed said he gave a strong sermon against terrorism and about the sanctity of life in 2015. He said 2,000 members of the mosque were with him; a small number were not; and a few signed a petition criticising him.  ‘Salman showed me a face of hate after that sermon,’ he said. ‘He was showing me hatred.’

A trustee of Didsbury Mosque lied to the Financial Times about Salman Abedi: ‘We don’t know who he is. We’ve never seen him’.

Moreover, Didsbury Mosque has been in the spotlight before.  Worshipper Abdalraouf Abdallah, 24, was jailed for nine and a half years last year after being convicted of funding terrorism and preparing acts of terrorism. Abdallah helped a number of men to travel to Syria and fight in the civil war.  A family friend told the Guardian Abedi and Abdallah knew each other: ‘All the Libyan lads in Manchester know each other’.

George Kasimeris - propaganda

George Kasimeris – propaganda

News becomes propaganda

Meanwhile, news coverage of the atrocity in the mainstream media quickly moved into propaganda mode.  Almost every segment on the BBC’s report on Tuesday night emphasised ‘coming together’.  Political leaders especially said they were not allowing the bombing ‘to divide us’.

Likewise in the online mainstream print media. Professor George Kassimeris holds a chair in security studies at the University of Wolverhampton.  He wrote on the changing face of terrorism in the Independent.  ‘Yesterday’s terrorist attack in Manchester has traumatised all of us living in the UK’, he wrote.  He was supposed to be contrasting the nature of Islamic terrorism with the old IRA and Red Brigades.  And yet he concluded of the attack: ‘we must not allow it to poison and divide us.’  That is propaganda.

Meanwhile, the Mayor of Manchester, Labour’s Professor of Theology Andy Burnham, devalues political discourse by claiming bomber Abedi was ‘a terrorist not a Muslim’.  That’s also propaganda.  If he was not a Muslim, what was he?  A Buddhist?  If they can’t face the truth, how will this sort ever protect the public?

It is as if the Establishment are truly fearful of anyone joining up the dots.  People might consequently criticise the multi-cultural paradigm.  Broadcasters will therefore deny any link between Islam, Muslims, Mosques, the Quran and Terrorism.  Ordinary voters must never make that connection.   But, as the reports coming out of the mosque show all too well, Islam is a religion of works and those works include jihad.  Moreover, Jihad, in the hands of a significant number of Muslims, means death to unbelievers.

Duty of the state to maintain peace

The state’s fundamental duty is to keep its people safe.  That means firstly defending the realm from external attack.  Thank God, that is not remotely our problem today.  But secondly, the state’s duty is to maintain peace and security inside the realm.  Here is where the problem lies

The Apostle Paul makes the duty of the state very clear in his letter to the church in Rome:

Rom 13:4b … he (the ruler) is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.  … 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

In his letter to Timothy, he makes a similar point, urging prayer for leaders and giving a reason:

1Tim 2:2  (pray) For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

And this is no more than what Jeremiah told the Jewish captives in Babylon:

Jer 29:7 And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.

What price security?

Dame Stella Rimington, former Director General of MI5

Dame Stella Rimington, former Director General of MI5

Peace and security are good things and they are what the state is God-ordained to bring.  Here we have a big problem.  Too many Muslims in Britain are intent on terrorism.

In addition, the security services knew Salman Abedi and Westminster killer Khalid Masood.  Nevertheless, they had neither as part of any active investigation.  They did not regard either as ‘a high risk’.  The ‘spooks’ viewed both as ‘peripheral figures’.  MI5 also had Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale on the list, but allowed them to carry out the murder of Lee Rigby.

If peripheral figures can cause such mayhem, what can central figures achieve?  Last year we learnt MI5 have 3,000 suspects on a terror watch list.   It was previously 2,000.  But MI5 need around 25 officers to keep tabs on every one of them round the clock.

Dame Stella Rimington told the BBC: ‘And if 2,000 people were to be followed like that, we’d be talking about 50,000 full-time spies doing nothing but following suspected terrorists. That’s more than 10 times the number of people employed by MI5. The numbers don’t add up.’

We want to be protected, not ‘reassured’

What are the alternatives?  It appears a choice between internment and regular substantial loss of innocent life.  What are our politicians going to suggest in this general election campaign, when it gets going again?  Senior police officers have been on camera in the last few days.  Deploying the Army on the streets is a good thing if it releases police officers for something more important.  Soldiers will be more useful here than in Estonia anyway.

Some policemen and government ministers told the media deploying troops is about ‘reassuring the public’.   It is not.  Or if it is they have their priorities very wrong.  We don’t desire to be ‘reassured’, thank you.  We want to be protected.

Click on the links below to share this:



Skip to comment form

  1. Mark Jones

    I can see no alternative to deporting ALL muslims, otherwise as the, imo, taqiyyah spouting Sadiq Khan said, we will just have to get used to such attacks. Where do we deport them to? well, failing their countries of origin (Pakistan, etc), how about somewhere like Ascension Island? we can air-drop food etc on a regular basis.

    1. Rox

      I can think of Continental politicians who would have relished this suggested solution if they were still alive. They would probably have recommended a more practical and efficient version of it, however, to the great dismay of most of the world.

      I can only suppose that Mark lives in a quiet part of the country where there are very few Muslim families for him to get to know.

      1. Stephen

        Good point. Where Muslims are few, the place is quiet.

        1. Rox

          I think actually it’s because Muslims are unlikely to settle in rural areas where the main industry is retirement. I know some who have done so after retiring from running small shops where they proved to be rather ignorant of the official hours for an off-licence.

      2. Mark Jones

        Rox: just to be clear (you delight in obfuscations, putting words in commenters’ mouths, etc: either that, or you are an imbecile): I said “deport”, not “gas”.

        1. Rox

          Let’s be quite clear on this, and everyone can see the evidence, I did NOT put the word “gas” in your mouth, or introduce it at all.

          However, your idea of forcibly repopulating Ascension Island in this way is reminiscent of the internment of Jews on the Isle of Man in 1940. Am I allowed to say that ?

          Ken Livingstone got into trouble recently for recalling (perfectly correctly) that Hitler was at one stage in favour of sending Jews to Palestine. This was the Haavara Agreement, signed on 25th August 1933, and 60,000 German Jews did migrate to Palestine as a result of it. So I can’t understand why Ken Livingstone suffered so much for recalling it.

          By the way, air-dropping adequate supplies of food etc on Ascension Island indefinitely would be incredibly expensive. I don’t think the remaining British taxpayers would put up with that. I don’t think you’ve thought it through (I won’t suggest that you might be an imbecile).

          1. Mark Jones

            Rox, I apologise. I must admit I didn’t fully research the cost of air-dropping food supplies onto Ascension Island. But apart from this, are we in agreement that it would be a good plan?

  2. Epistle

    Clearly, as several men who were regarded as peripheral to Terrorism have gone on to commit terrorist acts, it is necessary for the Security Service (the correct name for MI5) to be better staffed, to limit the threat. We have seen the terrible consequences of letting what were thought to be small fry through the net, even not being tracked when they have recently travelled to Libya, Syria, etc.. It is also incumbent on the Islamic establishment who readily condemn such acts to expose those who have been radicalised, relating their concerns to the authorities. To prove, if it is possible to prove, that these acts are truly not done in their name, they must be proactive in weeding out those becoming a threat. Inaction is not enough – the Islamic community has a positive duty to act to combat Terrorism engendered amongst their darker followers. Without such initiatives, the next steps would be to impinge on all our freedoms by imposing some sort of Internment or tagging of those identified as a threat. But as we saw with the IRA, “martyrs” emerge from such heavy handedness. Let us hope and pray that this does not prove necessary,

    1. Rox

      That makes good sense, but it can’t be perfect. The Victorians had little doubt who the “criminal classes” were, and modern police forces would be able to compile a list of “known criminals”. But this can’t prevent all crime.

  3. jsampson45

    A figure of 1732 is given for number of British road deaths in 2015. This works out at about 30 deaths per week. The terrorists have competition.

    1. Mark Jones

      so what are you saying? because more people are killed on the roads, we should just accept some will be killed in terrorist attacks?

      1. Rox

        This does put it in proportion.

        I told my grand-daughters that although Maddy disappeared, most little girls don’t. She only gets so much space in the newspapers because it is so unusual [and also because her parents like a lot of publicity ]. The important thing for little girls is to be careful not to get run over.

        One practical conclusion might be that accepting lower speed limits where appropriate might save more lives than accepting increased “security”. Actually, armed police always make me feel uneasy, and I doubt if they really improve the situation very much in public places (because there are always people to kill in other public places, and a man carrying a bomb isn’t particularly easy for an armed policeman to detect anyway).

        Thank you Mr Sampson for your contribution.

    2. Mark Jones

      Comparing the numbers of traffic accidents with terrorist attacks without taking account of the motivations, or lack thereof, is not a sensible thing to do. Usually it is bee stings or shark attacks but we really need to accept that accidents are accidents while terrorist attacks are enemy action and part of the global jihad which has caused 30,000 lethal attacks around the world since 9/11.

Leave a Reply