The United Kingdom recently came together to commemorate the horrific 7th July 2005 London bombings, commonly known as 7/7, during which Islamiterrorists carried out four well-planned suicide assaults on the city’s transport network amid rush hour. Three attackers individually set off three homemade bombs on London Underground trains in Inner London in rapid succession. Another bomb was later set off on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square by a fourth terrorist.
The Circle Line close to Aldgate, Edgware Road and the Piccadilly Line near Russell Square were the sites of the train explosions. 52 people lost their lives in the incident while over 800 more were injured. It was the first Islamist suicide strike in the United Kingdom and the deadliest terrorist act since the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 near Lockerbie.
The suicide bombers were identified as 18-year-old Hasib Hussain, 19-year-old Germaine Lindsay, 22-year-old Shehzad Tanweer and 30-year-old Muhammad Sidique Khan. Sidique, Shehzad and Hasib were British-born sons of Pakistani parents and Germaine was born in Jamaica who embraced Islam and changed his name to Abdullah Shaheed Jamal.
While the nation mourned the victims, an astounding trend was visible among the royalty, politicians and media to sanitize the Islamic element of the assault. A collective effort had been underway, seemingly aimed at exonerating the jihadis for their atrocious actions in a desperate bid to protect the delicate feelings of a specific community. However, it raises the question of why naming the perpetrators by their true identity, ideology and motives should elicit such a reaction from any person or group?
This rationale, however, was lost as British media, in line with its ruling class, joined the effort to whitewash the attack, ultimately portraying the Muslim community as the true casualty of the terror strike. The genuine stories of individuals who were killed or whose lives were shattered and their grief of their families were overshadowed as the narrative of Muslim victimhood became prioritized over their real anguish and distress.
7/7 changed lives of Muslims: British media
One of the deadliest terrorist attacks not only in the country but also in the world, intended to bleed the Western country, had been portrayed as a painful experience for the members of the Muslim community residing in the nation. It is undeniable that some Muslims might have been affected by the attacks, as bombs do not distinguish between individuals of different faiths, unlike the Islamic terrorists. However, this does not alter the fact that they were not the intended targets.
Nonetheless, the British media is working diligently to create the impression that the terror-hit was directed against Muslims. “The Conversation” featured a story of a Muslim woman who “survived the bombings” only to be labeled “terrorist” later. Notably, she emerged unscathed as she was at a considerable distance from the area, ensuring her physical safety.
However, she bemoaned about the absence of media coverage on her “fear, trauma or belongingness” and alleged that she has been continually attacked for her religious identity in the wake of the event. She also complained about “increased surveillance and marginalisation of Muslim communities in the UK.”
Taking a step further, “The Guardian” talked to the members of the Muslim community to strongly affirm the flawed narrative of Muslim victimhood. Nonetheless, the content was permeated with the same rhetoric, where the interviewees stated that their lives have been irrevocably transformed since the bombings 20 years ago and charged that the policies of the British government were racist, contributing to the rise of Islamophobia.
According to the article, police stop-and-searches and hate crimes involving religion have dramatically increased. It even bemoaned the fact that conviction rates for terrorism accusations skyrocketed as hundreds of such charges were filed every year.
“Mirror” also indicated that the consequences of the attack were not shouldered by the victims, whose lives were permanently changed in a matter of moments, but by the Muslim community, which faced the repercussions in the aftermath. It shared interviews from the Muslim community with “The Guardian,” insisting that “the tragedy altered the very fabric of the British Muslim community in the UK,” to reinforce a similar agenda.
If all British media were engaged in whitewashing the attack, how could the habitual offender “BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)” lag behind? They published a piece asserting that the incident transformed an entire generation of British Muslims, in which the authors criticized British policies and alleged that they specifically targeted the Muslim community.
Counter-terrorism initiatives such as Prevent were described as “toxic” and condemned as “counterproductive, making Muslim students feel isolated and contributing to a widespread sense of distrust among communities.”
The British broadcaster even released a news report concerning “Islamophobia” as the anniversary of 7/7 approached, calling on Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, whose time in office has witnessed a rise in crimes, particularly knife attacks, to enhance efforts and establish mandatory training across the Greater London Authority (GLA) to confront the issue. Khan’s parents landed in London from Pakistan.
The appeal was made by Hina Bokhari, a Liberal Democrat member of the London Assembly. She is the first woman from an ethnic minority (Pakistani) to serve as the head of a group on the assembly. Islamophobia is on the rise, she added, and it affects her and other Muslims.
The British media, government and authorities in an alarming show of recreancy and political correcteness, have also shied away from addressing the issue of Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs, choosing not to be labeled as racists rather than prioritizing justice, dignity and lives of minor girls of their country.
How British royalty, leaders try to underplay the role of jihadis in 7/7
The British monarchy and political elite had already trivialized the pain of the victims of the terror attack by diminishing it to ambiguous statements like “lost lives” as if there were no external influences driven by a violent ideology, accountable for their demise. King Charles III employed refined jargon, which could have been appropriate for a diplomatic address, during the memorial.
He made hollow appeals for “mutual respect” and conveniently evaded the terms jihad or Islamic terrorism that were responsible for the attack, while discussing “senseless acts of evil” and a “terrible summer’s day.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer also added to the euphemism and announced that “those who tried to divide us failed” at the event.
He emphasised the superficial phrases about “standing against hate” while laying wreaths, thus concealing the fact that the hate stemmed from a justification for murdering the unbelievers. More importantly, his staff acknowledged that the wording was carefully chosen to prevent “offending communities,” favouring Muslim sensibilities over British lives.
Likewise, a national “service of remembrance” turned into an interfaith performance. The Dean offered generic homilies on “hope” and “resilience” as 52,000 petals drifted beautifully from the dome, characterising the massacre as a natural calamity rather than an act fuelled by religious convictions. The clergy delivered sermons on “openness,” erasing any reference to the Islamist death cult that cultivated the assaliants. On the other hand, the survivors spoke about “darkness,” describing how profoundly their life changed after the attack.
The sham was joined by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Reyner, who released a banal statement under the guise of “community healing” and “shared resilience,” as well as announced, “We remember all whose lives were tragically altered.” There was no mention of Islamic terrorism or even terrorism. As expected, her staff also attested that the language was thoroughly examined to prevent “inciting division,” which is euphemism for pacifying Muslim sentiments and their Leftist lackeys.
Everlasting Muslim victimhood
The perception of victimization among Muslims shows no signs of abating, especially as the entire leftist-liberal ecosystem stands resolutely together to sustain this narrative, irrespective of the country or the incident. India, bordered by three Islamic countries and home to a 200 million strong Muslim population which continues to be treated as a minority rather than the second largest majority, has repeatedly suffered due to the same, where even acts of terrorism are underplayed by liberal parties, media and their entire cabal to appease Muslims and use them as vote-bank.
In any event or attack, the actual victims are routinely sidelined as they are replaced by Muslims, who are painted as the ones at the receiving end. Consequently, the entire narrative shifts towards the latter, allowing them to become the focal point while the original issue recedes into the background, leaving those who truly endured almost overlooked.
The most recent instance of this was showcased during the unfortunate Air India crash close to Ahmedabad, which resulted in the loss of 240 lives and devastated numerous families. Nevertheless, mourning the deceased was not as important to some of India’s liberal voices who were more concerned about the pilot’s religion. They shamelessly conveyed that the true tragedy would have been if the pilot had been a Muslim.
Amit Behere, a self-identified commentator, notorious for his offensive online discourse wroted, “Imagine if the pilot was a Muslim. Just imagine. And thank God he was not.” In addition to being callous, this statement was a glaring illustration of the ideological decay that has pervaded the liberal echo chamber. Many others like him also displayed their intellectual decay and insensitivity, blinded by their hateful agenda.
How Muslims were made victims of anti-Hindu Delhi riots
Major foreign news outlets like “Reuters,” “The Telegraph” and platforms like “The Print” disseminated a skewed, inaccurate and deceptive account of premeditated anti-Hindu Delhi riots which took place in February 2020, leading to a troubling trend of biassed reporting during the Lok Sabha Elections of 2024.
Additionally, the same lies were also promoted by the media in Bangladesh and Pakistan. They deliberately disregarded the vicious killings of numerous Hindus by Muslim mobs, including Dilbar Negi, chief constable Ratan Lal, and IB (Intelligence Bureau) officer Ankit Sharma.
A Reuters wire story that exclusively addressed the alleged Muslim riot victims was published by the Print and Pakistani newspaper Dawn. It made a blatant effort to depict victimisation and suffering on a unilateral basis. Likewise, the Delhi Riots of 2020 were defined as a “anti-Muslim pogrom” in a Pakistan Today story that was based on the Islamabad-funded Kashmir Media Service report.
However, the reports did not address how Hindus were intentionally targeted and lynched by bloodthirsty Muslim mobs, forcing the majority community to resort to self-defense to protect themselves. Furthermore, plans for the balkanization of the country were also in progress, as unveiled by Sharjeel Imam and Shahheen Bagh served as a facade to implement their violent agenda. The facts were omitted from the articles, as they would have exposed the meticulously crafted narrative.
Refusal to acknowlege real victims
“Hindus cannot be considered victims in India due to their majority status,” is the notorious defense frequently employed by Islamists and their liberal apologists, which has been discredited from Kashmir to West Bengal and Kerala.
However, as fabrications and falsehoods have never posed a problem for this ecosystem, individuals such as Arfa Khanum Sherwani, Rana Ayyub and Sayema have consistently defamed Hindus who have endured violence and stone pelting at the hands of Muslim mobs, during their sacred festivals and events, across the nation. The attacks on their temples and deities have also increased over the years.
Nevertheless, the Islamo-leftist network exerts considerable effort to portray Muslims as victims, subjected to a brutal regime, with their rights stripped away. Meanwhile, they create unrest, assault Hindus, challenge authorities and adminitration, while being consistently supported by their ecosystem.
Furthermore, the targeting of Hindu processions is rationalized under the pretext of entering the “Muslim areas,” while the attacks are simply dubbed as “communal tensions” to absolve radical Muslims of responsibility. Ironically, the Hindu majority population does not change India’s “secular” character, however, certain neighbourhoods become “Muslim areas” due to their demography.
Similarly, stone pelting, rioting and attacks on law enforcement personnel, executing their legal duties are frequently termed as outcomes of provocation or anger and even acts of retaliation against the system. On the contrary, legal measures against Islamists and jihadists are interpreted as judicial killings, state persecution, vendetta, majoritarianism, unlawful action and so forth.
The Hindus are even referred to as a “rotten community” by fanatics like Sharjeel Usmani to defend their co-religionists. To summarise these people “want to have their cake and eat it too.”
Conclusion
The severe anguish of the victims of Islamic terror has regularly been subordinated to the fragile feelings of Muslims. This was again pointed out in 2021 when the largest school board in Canada removed a woman who had escaped from the clutches of ISIS and was forced into sexual slavery as a teenager.
Students from some of the 600 schools of the Toronto District School Board were scheduled to meet with Iraqi-born Yazidi human rights activist Nadia Murad to discuss her upcoming book “The Last Girl: My Story Of Captivity.” She is a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and United Nations Goodwill Ambassador. However, Helen Fisher, the superintendent of the school board cancelled the visit, asserting that the book would offend Muslims and “foster Islamophobia.”
Highlighting this absurdity of this perpetual victimhood propaganda, a social media account mocked in 2016, “What frightens me is the possibility of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) detonating a nuclear device and killing 50 million Americans. Can you envision the repercussions for peaceful Muslims?”
It is clear that these incidents are not isolated cases but a common occurrence that takes place repeatedly across various parts of the world, such as India, Canada, the United Kingdom and other countries. Nonetheless, if the energy expended on this is applied to ensure that the culprits are held accountable, acknowledge the ugly truth of jihad and Islamic terrorism and counter extremist elements, there would be no necessity to obscure any acts of terror, protect any sentiments or cry about Islamophobia. Crucially, the world would become a significantly safer place for all, including Muslims.
