by Nicholas Vance over at Last Night’s BBC News about a Steven Sackur report on the first anniversary of the Madrid bombings. A taster:
Mr Sackur would do well to avoid making sweeping generalisations about Muslim opposition to terror, just as he would never dream of making sweeping generalisations about Muslim support for terror. Further, absolute statements opposing terrorism are often far less impressive once one understands how terms like “civilian” and “defensive struggle” may be defined in Islamic discourse.
Well worth reading it all.
Qur’an 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N260 “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’”
Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.’”
Qur’an 47:4 “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle, smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives… Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”
Tabari IX:69 “Arabs were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us.”
Qur’an 88:1 “Some faces (all disbelievers, Hindus, Jews and Christians) will be humiliated and scorched by the burning fire, while they are made to drink boiling water.”
Qur’an 5:51 “O believers, do not hold Jews and Christians as your allies. They are allies of one another; and anyone who makes them his friends is one of them.”
Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Qur’an 2:10 “As for those who deny Islam…they shall be the faggots for the Fire of Hell.”
😆
Tabari IX:131 “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought in while the Messenger was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. Then the men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.”
…What??!!! :o(
Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”
Tabari I:280: “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”
Hmm, no comment 😉
Tabari I:278: “Adam went inside the tree to hide. Eve cut the tree and it bled. Then feather that covered Adam and Eve dropped off. So Allah said, ‘Now Eve, as you caused the tree to bleed, you will bleed every new moon, and you, snake, I will cut off your feet and you will walk slithering on your face.’”
Tabari I:279: “It was a tree which made whoever ate from it defecate. But there must be no faeces in Paradise.
I guess Allah works in mysterious ways ❓
OT request.
So-Called-BBC’s backpedaling apology.
Beeb’s Jerusalem propaganda bureau chief Simon Wilson™ willingly broke Israel’s censorship laws. Israel revoked his working permit and denied his visa. BBC had no choice but to apologise. So far, good. (In the link above) it is reported that “The agreement was to have remained confidential, but the BBC unintentionally posted details on its website before removing them a few hours later.”
Does anyone have a link to the deleted details? If so, please be kind enough to post it here. I’ve searched for it but it was too late. Would be interesting to read.
Why does the BBC love muslims so much?
As part of an ongoing love in between the beeb and muslims, here’s the latest installment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/4347061.stm
We’ve had it all on the Today programme this morning:-
Thought for Today with the Bishop of Southwark managing to mention coalition abuse of Iraqis in the first sentence.
Humphreys giving McGuinness a very easy ride. Did you notice the relaxed tone in Humphrey’s voice when interviewing this vomit-inducing excuse for a politician? One which he never uses when interviewing anyone who supported the Iraq war or supports George Bush?
Naughtie fingering (yet again) the USA as “The world’s biggest polluter”.
Monkey
Careful there, you may be awoken soon by a dawn knock at your door. Can’t have people bringing attention to Islam’s true nature now, can we?
Eamonn,
I thought TFTD was unusually sound this morning. The Bishop made the good point that we expect an lot of the army by having to take the anti authoritarian output from our dismal state education system and turn it into a disciplined force capable of being fighting soldiers one minute and international social workers the next. Amid all the hysteria about Abu Ghraib, Breadbasket etc its not a point I have herad made on the BBC before.
I dont think Humphreys ever gives McGuinness an easy ride and he always returns to the key point that IRA and Sinn Fein are the same and that they are thugs and gangsters. McGuinnesss never sounds particularly convincing in response. Humphreys is sound and consistent on this one. Unusual for BBC I know but there it is.
I still think they should bring on Mark Steyn though.
From last night’s Newsnight feature on G. Brown –
An infantile overstatement of the significance of Brown’s words & desperation to do down Blair & Bush
“UK not just bridge to US – Brown
The UK is more than just a bridge between Europe and the US, Chancellor Gordon Brown has said.
Mr Brown said Britain has values of its own and is not just a device for bringing different people together.
They come despite Tony Blair saying in 2001: “This idea of Britain as a bridge between Europe and the USA, pulling the two together… is important for us.”
The film is likely to prompt further questions about whether or not Mr Brown would pursue a different kind of foreign policy, particularly towards the US.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4346749.stm
Talk about unsound analysis from the BBC dan. Brown is far more close the American economic view than that of federalised Europe.
Hmm, we haven’t reached Orwell’s 1984 yet Pete, but that’s probably where we’re headed.
As for the quotes, I find it difficult to believe that you can ever be a true muslim, and moderate at the same time. You either believe the Koran = instructions from God or you don’t. There is no middle ground.
In the 1930s the elites assured us that Nazism was no threat to us, that the German essentially wanted peace, despite what was written in black and white in Mein Kamph.
Today they assure us that mass immigration of muslims into Europe (to the extent that they will soon outnumber the shrinking indigenous population) is no big deal and won’t really change anything.
I think it’s quite important when a bloke who is probably the next Prime Minister sets out his thoughts on issues beyond his immediate responsibilities. If you don’t like what he has to say that’s hardly the BBC’s fault and I haven’t seem him whining about being misinterpreted – just don’t vote for his party.
Re: Mark Steyn – I reckon that one of the best ways for the BBC to fulfill its obligation to get the public interested in politics is to set the more ‘niche market’ political commentators against each other in direct competition. Let’s get them out of their comfort zones as well.
I’m thinking Steyn & Phillips v. Toynbee & Monbiot in a Bullseye variant presented by Jim Bowen. If Mark can hit a red part of the board, Mel gets to discuss the moral degradation of modern Britain. If he misses she has to specify exactly what she’d actually propose to do about it. If George shows skill with the ‘arrers Polly can bang on unchallenged about how unfair it is that people have different net pay. Fail and she’ll need to explain the economic implications of 150% tax rates.
A surefire winner.
How about “The Running Person” where people jailed to fund entertainment get a chance to have their (TV Tax fines) “debt to society paid in full” if they survive a set of assault courses. Of course as they’re all single mothers this will increase the difficulty/ watchability!
Let’s hope the future of the BBC is only reruns!
Cockney
I like your darts game idea.
Bt one of the problems at the BBC is that a lot of the presenters themselves are loopy-left. Mrk Lawson, for example – think how much radio and TV airtime he gets each week.
Tonight they let him loose on BBC 4 with an extended interview with Seymour Hersh, one of the American left’s favourite journalists/idealogues. A US version of George Monbiot/Moonbat. That is surely outright bias – a leftie interviewing a leftie ?
If the Islamic population is demanding privileges now, with only a small percentage of the population, think what will happen when they get into the 20%-30% levels.
If they become a majority, or close to a majority, their assertion of their culture will become stronger. This is human nature, of course, but Islam makes it uncompromising and imposes it aggressively.
John,
Maybe all BBC presenters should be made to do one of those internet quizzes that come round frequently where you answer loads of questions on hanging and single mothers then it plots your position on social and economic left/right axes. Publish the results and we’d know where we stood.
If there’s a need for more right wingers they could do worse than shift some of the sports presenters across. Peter Aliss (in?)famously called for Bruce Forsythe’s burglars to be hung whilst Alan Green’s views as to the state of the nation make Melanie Phillips sound like a cheerful soul. They could then let the existing political commentators explain why Rooney’s attitude problem is actually Mrs Thatcher’s fault.
Cockney
Nice idea. Any interview with clowns like Monbiot or Hersh should be conducted by Jeremy Clarkson ? Now THERE’s an attack dog !
Seymour Hersh has been implicated with some of the worst journalism scams in recent years. Any competent programme producer or researcher could find them in a matter of minutes. But will Mark Lawson raise them – or will; he fawn over Hersh for the entire programme. Oh – and if Hersh is worth a whole programme, why not Mark Steyn ?
Today they assure us that mass immigration of muslims into Europe (to the extent that they will soon outnumber the shrinking indigenous population) is no big deal and won’t really change anything.
Recently in the States, we passed the 40 MILLION murders of defenseless babies, since Roe VS Wade was made legal. Does anyone know what the number is in Europe? Then we can all get together and scratch our heads and wonder why we are being outnumbered by the Muslim population.
On Radio 4’s Moral Maze to-night was debated the fundamental moral question of abortion – in the UK, currently 180,000 per annum. Panellists were Clifford Longley and melanie Phillips (anti) and Rosie Boycott and Claire Fox (pro). The program was of an excellent quality currently lacking in most of today’s low-brow output but through it all was the perception of a dearth of moral reasoning within those favouring abortion on demand, essentially of the left. In 1969, two years after abortion was legalised (and quickly metamorphosed into abortion on demand), there were 55,000 abortions. The cumulative number of abortions before 1981 is about 1,500,000 – who would have been economically active and would have undercut the already questionable logic of those who advocate mass immigration into the UK.
Given the reality that people rarely arbitrarily have abortions just because they airily decide that they don’t fancy a kid at this point, that would be 1,500,000 citizens whose abysmal upbringings mostly by people genuinely unable to raise children to a reasonable standard guaranteed that they would be financial and social burdens on society throughout their lives.
The problem isn’t the availability of abortions, it’s that a whole generation of kids and young adults are too hideously stupid and irresponsible to accomplish the pretty simple task of not getting pregnant.
Cockney,
I disagree with you on every point except the last one. From my experience, many people do indeed “airily decide that they don’t want a kid at this point”, although it’s not necessarily the woman who drives the decision. There are many people around today who fit your criteria of “abysmal upbringings … financial and social burdens”. This sounds almost like economic eugenics and yet the absence of these 1.5 million indigenous taxpayers is in itself an economic problem. It cannot be argued that eliminating millions of our own people and replacing them with unassimilable ‘others’ has no detrimental effects on the country, and yet this is precisely what is being put by the Leftocracy (BBC included).
Of course there are many people today who fit the description of “abysmal upbringings … financial and social burdens”. Do we really need more by denying the sort of dregs who produce these people the opportunity to rectify their mistake? I appreciate that there is something morally reprehensible about abortion as birth control, however until the education system can produce individuals with sufficient mental capacity to avoid unwanted preganancy, the alternative is a viscious circle. I dunno who you view as ‘our own people’ but I don’t feel a hell of a lot of kinship with families of 12 (barely) living off my taxes.
There are plenty of problems with the immigration system, largely in my view caused by a chronic lack of cash, manpower and court time rather than insufficient laws, but I’d far far rather have a Poles over to fill skills and labour gaps that a vast expansion of the already problematic underclass.
Go Cockney!
Immigration to the UK is being subsidised by taxpayers, with predictable results on the quality of immigrants.
Cockney
” … however until the education system can produce individuals with sufficient mental capacity to avoid unwanted preganancy, the alternative is a viscious circle.”
Hey? Who? What? Since when is it the responsibility of the educational system to imbue the next generation with moral standards, decency and self-worth (for this is what is lacking)? Families have that responsibility. It is the job of parents. Beyond the 4 ‘Rs’ (reading, ‘riting, ‘rithmetic and Ramadan) schools have no proper moral function.
There’s a wonderful irony in all this. The left will never get over BusHitler’s ‘illegal war’, yet they will defend the rights of the near 400,000 British women who have had an abortion since the ‘illegal war’ began. The left side of things is a truly wierd, sick place.
Pete, in reality education has a strong function in instilling the intelligence from which adherence to moral values follows. Morality isn’t a tangible concept, it’s basic common sense – if we all behave with a bit of respect towards each other we’ll all be better off. As religion inevitably declines intelligent people realise that the behaviour previously ‘enforced’ by fear of a supernatural deity is worth perpetuating for it’s own sake. Stupid people think they can do what the f*ck they like and moan like hell when they get some back.
Cockney
Erm … I think we’re agreeing here. As you say, schools have a strong function in developing a child’s critical and intellectual faculties. My view is that schools can only ever assist parents in this role. Parents (note, two of them, how reactionary of me!) are the life-givers, the nurturers, the educators and the moral standard bearers. The last 50 years of British social history have proven that when parents allow the state to come in and take over this role we breed generations of immoral animals. Only a fool would allow school teachers the primary task of inculcating children with moral standards. Oh look, the government has been trying to force mothers out of the home and into the workplace. I wonder why?
I totally agree with Pete. And it doesn’t help much either when schools teach the children that they are nothing more than evolutionized apes. It’s no wonder people mate like animals after being taught this stuff.
Denise, are you suggesting that kids in the UK shouldn’t be taught evolution????!!!!
Cockney,
As long as it is taught as a theory and not a fact. And as long as the theory of creation is taught also. That way the child can decide what he or she wishes to believe as fact.
That’s fair enough as long as the overwhelming balance of scientific opinion in favour of evolution is clearly stressed and there is ‘room’ in the syllabus for as minority a scientific view as creationism (i.e. are other theories with as little scientific support covered? this shouldn’t be a special case to appease special interests).
Minority view? Maybe there in the UK. To me, the theory that we humans evolved from the ape is the most ludicrous bunch of nonsense that I ever heard in my life. If it were so, then how come the apes that exist today never evolved into humans? And look how many years humans have been on the earth. How come we haven’t evolved into some other type of creature by now? To evolve means to change, which we do but only from fetus to adult. That’s what I believe anyway. But then again, I’m just a “Christian fundamentalist” or “religious wacko” who believes humans were actually created by God. Silly me. What do I know? (Whoops, I said the forbidden “G” word!) The Beeb loves to pounce on people like me.
Sorry Denise, but ” the theory that we humans evolved from the ape is the most ludicrous bunch of nonsense that I ever heard in my life. If it were so, then how come the apes that exist today never evolved into humans? And look how many years humans have been on the earth. How come we haven’t evolved into some other type of creature by now?” is perhaps the most ludicrous heap of garbage I have ever seen anyone foolish enough to put in a posting. You simply do not understand evolution to make a statement like that. You may claim to be a christian, but that is no reason to put your critical reasoning facilities into cold storage for the duration. If you must criticise evolutionary theory, find out what it is first.
Why don’t you explain it to me then. My e-mail address rwalker.5atcharter.net. I’m all ears.
Denise, you can believe what you like but I’d rather UK kids were taught about theories based on common beliefs in the appropriate fields of expertise. They do also get religious education. You’re quite right that creationist theory has very, very few followers in the UK and consequently sounds a bit bonkers from our point of view.
I’m with Cockney on this one – education, including science, should be based on things we know, things we can discover, things we can infer – not things we believe – all sorts of irrational horrors lie the other way, with all the various forms of literal belief out there.
Science and evolution are not necessarily incompatible with Christian teaching anyway, so it need not be an either/or issue – but that does not make religious belief an issue for school science classes!
I started to write a big long screed about why evolution is not ‘just a theory’ (i.e there’s lots of evidence to back it up) and how, if you insist on teaching the Christian version of events as part of science (rather than as part of RE, religious education) that you then have to explain why the Koranic and other versions of creation shouldn’t also be taught and so on, but really, this is far too big a topic to discuss here, well off the topic of the BBC and its bias, so I suggest you agree to differ and get on with more objective issues or take the theological debate to some other forum that is more focussed on that topic – I doubt that further debate here is going to convince or convert anyone!